We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 102

Siemens whistleblower complaint underscores need for "top-down" anti-corruption compliance

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2013

In 2008, Siemens AG paid $800 million to settle charges that it had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which generally prohibits bribery of

You again?: application of the first-to-file bar where subsequent actions are brought by the same relator

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2015

The Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq., has unique procedural aspects that come into play when a private whistleblower (the

Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal with prejudice of Corinthian Colleges securities fraud class action

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 5 2008

In Metzler Investment GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 2008 WL 2853402 (9th Cir. July 25, 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a securities fraud class action, holding that plaintiffs had failed to plead the essential elements of loss causation, scienter and falsity consistent with the requirements of prevailing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

Line in the sand: Siemens Argentina case limits personal jurisdiction under the FCPA

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, USA
  • -
  • March 8 2013

A New York federal district court judge has dismissed a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") claim against a former executive of Siemens, S.A

Fraud claim against syndicated lender allowed to proceed, despite express disclaimer of reliance in deal documents

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2010

On May 10, 2010, Justice Barbara R Kapnick permitted a fraud claim to proceed against a syndicated lender despite the fact that the plaintiffs were sophisticated parties and the loan documents contained express disclaimers of reliance

Arab Bank found liable for transactions under the Anti-Terrorism Act

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 9 2014

On September 22, 2014, a Brooklyn jury found Arab Bank, Jordan's largest lender, guilty of violating the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act for providing

Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection: for America only

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 13 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that the whistleblower protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act do not

Eleventh Circuit affirms dismissal of options backdating securities fraud class action for failure to meet Reform Act's heightened pleading standards

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 12 2010

In Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., No. 09-10954, 2010 WL 154519 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of securities fraud and insider trading claims arising out of options backdating

Canada's first foreign bribery conviction shows trend in increased enforcement

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • September 24 2013

On August 15, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court found Canadian national Nazir Karigar guilty of conspiring to offer a bribe to Indian government

United States Supreme Court decides question of corporate liability under Alien Tort Statute on broader grounds

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 25 2013

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491, 2013 WL 1628935 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2013), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the