On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and International Anti-Corruption Developments in 2014

Released on: May. 15, 2014
Running Time: 12:22:53

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) is at the top of most companies’ key risk areas. DOJ and SEC resources devoted to investigation and enforcing the law remain at an all-time high. Recent FCPA enforcement actions and disclosures demonstrate that no industry is immune from FCPA scrutiny, and FCPA sweep investigations across industry sectors are becoming more common and challenging. Beyond the FCPA, an increasing number of countries, as well as international organizations, are ramping up anti-corruption enforcement and adding to the complexity of global investigations and legal compliance. This program, taught by a faculty of leading practitioners, in-house experts and DOJ/SEC officials, will give you the background and tools you need to spot the issues early, develop workable risk management processes and implement effective compliance programs.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 012:22:53]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:05:17]
    Richard Grime, Mark F. Mendelsohn
  • Year in Review and Enforcement Trends [01:20:35]
    Richard Grime, Lucinda A. Low, F. Joseph Warin, Kara N. Brockmeyer, James M. Koukios
  • Joint Ventures [01:15:41]
    Mark F. Mendelsohn, Timothy L. Dickinson, Kathryn Cameron Atkinson, James D. Bamford
  • Hypothetical -- Crisis Management [01:13:47]
    Richard Grime, Richard Dean, Richard S Levick, Jay G. Martin, Kimberly A. Parker, Paul E. Rowsey
  • Key Issues in Developing and Maintaining an Effective Compliance Program [01:14:42]
    Richard Grime, Stephanie J. Meltzer, Kenneth G. Yormark, Erich O. Grosz
  • Responsibilities of Board Members [00:59:34]
    Peter B. Clark, Richard A. Sauber, Joel M. Cohen
  • Doing Business in China [01:33:55]
    William F. McGovern, Mark F. Mendelsohn, Melody Wang, Charles E. Duross
  • Key Issues in Representing Individuals [01:13:34]
    Richard Grime, James J. Benjamin, Jr., Harry A. Chernoff, Guy D. Singer, Claudius O. Sokenu, Mary C. Spearing
  • World Bank and MDBs [01:12:26]
    Tim Coleman, Glenn T. Ware, Stephen S. Zimmermann, Mark F. Mendelsohn
  • Financial Institutions/Private Equity [00:56:01]
    Robert E L deButts, Jr., Richard Grime, Raja Chatterjee, Philip Urofsky, Arthur D. Middlemiss
  • Roundtable Discussion with the Government and Private Practitioners [01:17:21]
    Mark F. Mendelsohn, Harry A. Chernoff, Greta Lichtenbaum, Cheryl J. Scarboro, David W. Simon

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP: 2013 FCPA Year in Review, February 28, 2014
    Lucinda A. Low
  • Outline of Selected SEC Enforcement Actions, October 2013
  • FCPA Compliance in Joint Ventures
    Kathryn Cameron Atkinson
  • Bloomberg BNA, Corporate Accountability Report, Does Your Compliance Program Need a Check-Up?
    Timothy L. Dickinson
  • Counseling Boards of Directors, Board Committees and Senior Management Through FCPA Investigations
    Richard Dean
  • In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del.Ch. 1996)
  • Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (Del. 2006)
  • Akin Gump Antibribery/Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Alert, August 6, 2013, Recent Developments in Chinese Antibribery Laws and Enforcement
    James J. Benjamin, Jr.
  • Emerging Anti-bribery Risks for MNCs Operating in China, March 14, 2014
    William F. McGovern
  • Inside the “Africa Sting” Trial: Anatomy of a Failed Prosecution, July 10, 2012
    Eric B. Bruce, William F. McGovern
  • Recent Developments in FCPA Law and Practice—Focus on Prosecution of Individuals
    James J. Benjamin, Jr.
  • Shearman & Sterling LLP FCPA Digest: Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, January 2014
    Claudius O. Sokenu, Philip Urofsky
  • Shearman & Sterling LLP Client Publication: SEC Enforcement Year in Review, January 2014
    Claudius O. Sokenu
  • World Bank Sanctions System: Tackling Corruption through a Two-Tier Administrative Sanctions Process, February 2014
    Pascale Helene Dubois
  • Ten Tips on Representing Clients in World Bank Investigations, February 28, 2014
    Tim Coleman
  • Feature Comment: The World Bank Implements New Sanctions Procedures, The Government Contractor, Vol. 53, No. 6, February 9, 2011
    Glenn T. Ware
  • Feature Comment: New Developments In The World Bank’s Sanctions Regime, The Government Contractor, Vol. 54, No.19, May 16, 2012
    Glenn T. Ware
  • Serious Economic Crime, A Boardroom Guide to Prevention and Compliance, 8, Co-ordinating the Fight Against Fraud and Corruption: Agreement on Cross-debarment Among Multilateral Development Banks
    Stephen S. Zimmermann
  • Integrity Vice Presidency, The World Bank Group, October 4, 2013
    Stephen S. Zimmermann
  • Shearman & Sterling FCPA Digest: Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, January 2014 (SEE CHAPTER 12)
    Philip Urofsky
  • Commentary in Support of and Against a Compliance Defense to FCPA Liability and Discussing the Pros and Cons of Self-Disclosure: An Annotated Bibliography, May 2, 2014
    David W. Simon
  • Just Say Yes to the Compliance Defense
    David W. Simon
  • Investigations Quarterly, Vol. 1, Issue 15, 2014, Capitalizing on Compliance, Private Equity Firms Can Prevent Exposure—and Uncover Value—Under Government Scrutiny
    Kenneth G. Yormark

Presentation Material

  • Joint Ventures
    James D. Bamford
  • Hypothetical- Crisis Management
    Richard Grime
  • Doing Business in China
    William F. McGovern
  • World Bank and MDBs
    Stephen S. Zimmermann

Co-Chair(s)
Richard W. Grime ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mark F. Mendelsohn ~ Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Speaker(s)
Kathryn Cameron Atkinson ~ Miller & Chevalier Chartered
James D. Bamford ~ Managing Director, Water Street Partners, LLC
James J. Benjamin, Jr. ~ Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Kara N. Brockmeyer ~ Chief, FCPA Unit; Division of Enforcement, U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission
Raja Chatterjee ~ Managing Director – Global Risk & Compliance Officer, Tishman Speyer
Harry A. Chernoff ~ Assistant U.S. Attorney/ Senior Litigation Counsel, Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
Peter B. Clark ~ Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Joel M. Cohen ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Tim Coleman ~ Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Richard N. Dean ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Robert E L deButts, Jr. ~ Vice President, Compliance Surveillance Strategy Group, Goldman Sachs & Co
Timothy L. Dickinson ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Charles E. Duross ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
Erich O. Grosz ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
James M. Koukios ~ Senior Deputy Chief, Fraud Section, U.S. Department of Justice
Richard S. Levick, Esq. ~ Chairman & CEO, LEVICK
Greta Lichtenbaum ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Lucinda A. Low ~ Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Jay G. Martin ~ Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Deputy General Counsel, Baker Hughes Incorporated
William F. McGovern ~ Kobre & Kim LLP
Stephanie J. Meltzer ~ Vice President, Assistant General Counsel, Pfizer Inc.
Arthur D. Middlemiss ~ Lewis Baach PLLC
Kimberly A. Parker ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Paul E. Rowsey ~ Chief Executive Officer, Compatriot Capital, Inc.
Richard A. Sauber ~ Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP
Cheryl J. Scarboro ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
David W. Simon ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Guy D. Singer ~ Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Claudius O. Sokenu ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Mary C. Spearing ~ Baker Botts L.L.P.
Philip Urofsky ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Melody Wang ~ Fangda Partners
Glenn T. Ware ~ Principal, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
F. Joseph Warin ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Kenneth G. Yormark ~ Director, Disputes & Investigations, Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Stephen S. Zimmermann ~ Director of Operations, Integrity Vice Presidency, The World Bank
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Related Items

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and International Anti-Corruption Developments 2015 May. 19, 2015

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and International Anti-Corruption Developments 2016 Kimberly A Parker, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Richard W Grime, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
 
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and International Anti-Corruption Developments 2015 Kimberly A Parker, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Richard W Grime, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
 
Print Share Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.