(I am preparing a post about the recent uproar over flash trading, so please forgive me if this morning I write mini-posts about issues on my radar - thanks!).
First, Law.com ran an interesting article yesterday about how American businesses can navigate the changing role of foreign officials and instrumentalities in light of the current economic crisis (where a foreign official is any person acting in an official capacity over an, inter alia, instrumentality of the government). The crux of the issue: precedent is a poor guide as to what degree of control an official must have over an organization before that organization becomes an "instrumentality." A variety of governments have recently participated in different forms of stimulus and aid to buttress their countries' businesses. The result is a wide variety of degrees and forms of government involvement. Bottomline: good luck American business seeking FCPA compliance. Authors Stephanie Meltzer and Christopher Tierney.
Also of interest: weeks ago I had come across a Fulbright Scholar who had written a research document that received positive feedback at the FCPA Blog. Then I read about him again in the WSJ; and then again last night on the Glom. Those scrutinizing his work are quite interested in his position, and it might be worth checking out. His argument is pretty straight-forward: an effective FCPA removes American investment in foreign markets, but does not achieve a higher ethical standard of business (no bribery). Rather, it allows broader access to that foreign market by foreign business actors to make the same - more? - bribery payments. The author is Andrew Spalding and the paper is available here.
Tweet this!
First, Law.com ran an interesting article yesterday about how American businesses can navigate the changing role of foreign officials and instrumentalities in light of the current economic crisis (where a foreign official is any person acting in an official capacity over an, inter alia, instrumentality of the government). The crux of the issue: precedent is a poor guide as to what degree of control an official must have over an organization before that organization becomes an "instrumentality." A variety of governments have recently participated in different forms of stimulus and aid to buttress their countries' businesses. The result is a wide variety of degrees and forms of government involvement. Bottomline: good luck American business seeking FCPA compliance. Authors Stephanie Meltzer and Christopher Tierney.
Also of interest: weeks ago I had come across a Fulbright Scholar who had written a research document that received positive feedback at the FCPA Blog. Then I read about him again in the WSJ; and then again last night on the Glom. Those scrutinizing his work are quite interested in his position, and it might be worth checking out. His argument is pretty straight-forward: an effective FCPA removes American investment in foreign markets, but does not achieve a higher ethical standard of business (no bribery). Rather, it allows broader access to that foreign market by foreign business actors to make the same - more? - bribery payments. The author is Andrew Spalding and the paper is available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Discussion and feedback is encouraged, but civility and professionalism will be maintained by administrative censoring of abusive or off-topic comments. Thank you.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.