Note from the Maritime Industry Team
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
William R. Bennett III and Alexandra Clark
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Shawn M. Wright, Carlos F. Ortiz, Mayling C. Blanco, and Ariel S. Glasner
Any company doing business abroad is subject to the long reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Small or privately held companies, just like large or public companies, are subject to the criminal specter of the FCPA. The operative inquiry is whether the company is operating and/or transacting any type of business abroad with the government, government-owned entities, or involving foreign officials—either directly, through joint ventures, or indirectly, through agents. A foreign official also includes employees of entities owned by the government.
Although the FCPA was first enacted in 1977, it was not widely enforced until the turn of this century; since then, the law has resulted in a steady flow of significant corporate settlements. Indeed, in approximately the last two decades, enforcement of the FCPA has increased exponentially, with the second-largest number of enforcement actions having been brought in 2016 (2008 had the greatest number). Before the FCPA, no country considered bribing a foreign official for business purposes to be illegal—it was simply considered a cost of doing business abroad. The United States was the first country to outlaw the practice and recently published a comprehensive resource guide to compliance with the act.
Continue reading “The Global Anti-Corruption Corner: A Primer to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Joan M. Bondareff and Jonathan K. Waldron
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Alan M. Weigel and Sean T. Pribyl
Projections of practical implementation into the maritime surface sector have rapidly shifted from a mere concept decades away to the immediate future. Today, innovators are not only developing USV technology, but are also conducting on-the-water testing of USVs. As a result, the potential applications and benefits of unmanned technologies are driving investment and shaping the conversation of both regulators and the industry. The question is no longer if, but when. And the answer to when, in some regards, is now.
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
George T. Boggs and Stefanos A. Roulakis
Answer: If you are subject to the U.S. anti-boycott rules, the answer is “no,” but your subsidiary can provide the certification for itself. This is discussed more fully below.
A frequent issue that vessels and cargo bound for ports in the Middle East encounter is compliance with U.S. anti-boycott provisions. The issue may also arise in connection with restrictions in charter agreements for vessels. These provisions provide that a U.S. person engaged in almost any type of commerce cannot comply with or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. These anti-boycott provisions were promulgated in response to the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, which remains the primary focus of the U.S. anti-boycott regulations. To avoid penalties, persons that trade with or in countries with a non-sanctioned boycott, such as the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, should familiarize themselves with the requirements of U.S. law.
Continue reading “Understanding the U.S. Anti-Boycott Provisions”
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
W. Cameron Beard and Lauren B. Wilgus
Mainbrace | June 2017 (No. 3)
Jonathan K. Waldron, Matthew J. Thomas, and Patricia M. O’Neill
In the last days of the Obama administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) proposed a major change in coastwise policy in its Proposed Modification and Revocation of Ruling Letters Relating to Customs Application of the Jones Act to the Transportation of Certain Merchandise and Equipment Between Coastwise Points (the “Notice”). The Notice, which was published in the CBP Customs Bulletin, proposed the modification of HQ 101925 (October 7, 1976), a seminal letter ruling upon which CBP and the industry have relied on for over 40 years when applying the Jones Act to vessels engaged in offshore construction, maintenance, and repair activities. (See CBP Customs Bulletin and Decisions, Vol. 51, No. 3, January 18, 2017, available here.)