Episode 116 -- Alstom Executive Convicted of FCPA and Money Laundering Offenses
Opinion Release Papers-07-01-Travel for Foreign Officials
[WEBINAR] Who Does What? Defining Proper Roles for Staff and Elected Officials
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 109-interview with Bill Michael on the SEC FCPA enforcement action against FLIR employees
Designed for busy in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and anti-corruption lawyers, this newsletter summarizes some of the most important international anti-corruption law and enforcement developments from the past...more
CHICAGO — CTA Launches AI Surveillance to Stop Gun Violence at Transit Stations- The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) recently rolled out an artificial intelligence (AI) surveillance tool to detect guns at stations, a move...more
On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, Linda Sun, a former high-ranking official in New York State’s government, was arrested in Brooklyn and charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for allegedly acting as...more
On August 19, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled with a registered investment adviser (Adviser),1 whereby the Adviser paid a $95,000 civil money penalty in addition to being censured for...more
Kamala Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as running mate for her presidential campaign has implications under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act (SEC Pay-to-Play Rule)....more
In May 2023, Florida became among the first states to limit select persons from "foreign countries of concern" from directly or indirectly owning, having a controlling interest in or acquiring an interest in Florida real...more
On August 6, 2024, the Democratic nominee for President, Kamala Harris, chose Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, as her running mate. This selection presents important considerations vis à vis the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (Rule...more
Vice President Kamala Harris’ selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate highlights a wrinkle in Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-5 (the “Pay-to-Play Rule” or “Rule”) to which investment advisers should...more
The U.S. Supreme Court stepped back from the brink in a term that could have reshaped First Amendment law for the internet age. ...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411: This case involves challenges to federal government communications with social media companies related to content...more
A Pennsylvania federal court has ruled that a lawmaker can be held personally liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for prerecorded robocalls that were intended as government communications to...more
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411, holding that neither the individual plaintiffs nor the state plaintiffs established standing to seek an injunction prohibiting governmental...more
On April 15, 2024, the SEC announced the settlement of administrative proceedings brought against a registered investment adviser for alleged violations of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule...more
Public officials should proceed with caution when using social media. The United States Supreme Court, in a recent unanimous decision, articulated a two-part test to determine when a public official’s social media account...more
Social media has given public officials the ability to share information quickly and easily with their constituents and followers, even on their own personal Facebook and other social media accounts. When using a personal...more
James Freed, like millions of other Americans, maintained a private Facebook page where he posted updates about his personal life. After he became the City Manager for Port Huron, Michigan, Freed would occasionally post...more
In my prior article, I discussed Lindke v. Freed, in which a social media user brought action under § 1983 against a city manager, alleging that the manager violated the user’s First Amendment rights by deleting his comments...more
In its recent opinions in Linke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the U.S. Supreme Court considered if and when public officials violate the First Amendment rights of members of the public by blocking them from the...more
In Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a civil rights violation might have occurred when the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan deleted and blocked comments on his personal Facebook page. This depended on...more
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-awaited decision on two cases that now create guardrails on when government officials can and cannot block private citizens from social media accounts....more
In its recent opinion in Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The Court held that a public...more
Editor's Note: In a historic and bold move, the U.S. government has implemented unprecedented sanctions against the Intellexa Consortium and its key figures for their roles in deploying spyware that jeopardizes privacy and...more
On Friday, March 15, a unanimous Supreme Court decided two companion cases (Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier) that resolved a split in the Circuits concerning whether public officials can be held liable under...more
Everyone on social media at some point has to figure out how they’re going to use it. Will their account be public? Will they post information about family? Current events? Religion? Politics? If the account’s not open to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has established guidelines for determining when a public official’s use of a private social media platform such as Facebook, X or Nextdoor constitutes public speech that cannot be censored. State and...more