| |
In this third issue of GLOBALitigation: USA, we present several articles which focus on the legal risks of doing business in the United States and the steps that should be taken to reduce those risks. First, we discuss the significant scope — and far-reaching nature — of U.S. anti-money laundering statutes which require careful consideration when structuring financial affairs and relationships. Next, we discuss "piercing the corporate veil," a concept claimants in the U.S. courts often try to utilize to bring non-U.S. corporations into U.S. legal proceedings, and we discuss steps companies can take to minimize risks. Finally, we present a discussion on the increasing use of corporate monitors in resolving criminal cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against corporations, including the factors that must be considered wherever a monitor is part of a plea deal or deferred prosecution agreement.
| 09/23/08 |
|
The Far-Reaching Implications of Anti-Money Laundering Regulations in the United States
The threat of costly, distracting, and potentially damaging enforcement actions exists for foreign financial institutions, including broker-dealers, credit unions, investment companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, currency exchangers, and in some cases, foreign individuals in light of regulatory guidelines related specifically to foreign entities under anti-money laundering provisions in the United States.
While these statutes are designed to uncover potential criminal activity, including terrorist threats, drug cartel activities, and human trafficking, they also contain strict, complex provisions with wide-ranging implications for all foreign entities and individuals doing business in the United States.
>> Read more |
|
| 09/22/08 |
|
Protecting the Parent Corporation from Disregard of the Corporate Form
More and more, non-U.S. corporations, as part of their global operations, conduct business in the United States. Through the use of subsidiaries, these corporations can manage the risk of lawsuits presented by their U.S. operations.
In this article, we explore the variables that U.S. courts take into account when weighing questions of jurisdiction in such lawsuits; and the steps that parent corporations can take to avoid having to pay costly judgments on behalf of subsidiaries doing business in the United States.
>> Read more |
|
| 09/21/08 |
|
Corporate Monitors: A Concept in Flux?
Independent Monitors have become commonplace on the corporate landscape. Major international companies have agreed to monitorships in connection with deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements.
>> Read more |
|
| |
|
