Bookmark us

About this blog.

Prepared by:

Thomas O. Gorman,
Dorsey and Whitney LLP
1801 K St. N.W.
Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20006

  LexisNexis Top Business Blogs 2011
LexisNexis Top Business Blogs 2010
Mr. Gorman's videos

TV news appearances



Search for additional articles and cases on this site:

Articles on securities law topics

Aiding and Abetting

Audit Committee Guide


Central Bank Decision

Class and Derivative Suits

Cooperation Standards

Corruption Digest

Criminal Security Cases

Directors & Officers Liability


Financial statement fraud

Insider Trading

Internal Investigations

Market Crisis

Parallel Proceedings

Rule 10b-5-1 Plans

Sarbanes Oxley Act


SECActions Trend Analysis

SEC Enforcement

SEC Investigations

Secondary Liability

Stock Option Backdating

Tellabs Decision

Sign up for our mailing list

Get an e-mail notification every time we have some new content

You can subscribe here

Related links

  • Disclaimer:



    The OECD Working Group On Bribery highlighted the efforts the UK in the anti-corruption area in a most recent report (here). That Report also contains a number of recommendations for future improvements.

    The Working Group concluded that the SFO and other relevant law enforcement agencies have significantly increased foreign bribery enforcement. The Group commended the UK for publishing its Guidance to Commercial Organizations. The UK government has made what the Report calls “substantial efforts” to raise awareness of the Bribery Act. Those efforts and the publicity surrounding the new Bribery Act have led to a heightened awareness of these issues in the UK. The Group commended the approach of the UK in requiring companies to compensate the country of a bribed official.

    The OECD Working Group also made a series of recommendations. Those include:

    • Maintaining the current role of the SFO;
    • Reconsidering the SFO’s policy of systematically settling self-reporting foreign bribery cases civilly whenever possible and taking steps to ensure that in these cases there are proportionate and effective sanctions;
    • Making public, where appropriate, as much information as possible about settlement agreements;
    • Avoiding confidentiality agreements which prevent the disclosure of key information about settled cases;
    • Clarifying guidance on what constitutes “reasonable and proportionate” hospitality and promotional expenditures, including the reference to industry norms;
    • Continuing to provide evidence to other countries after settlements where appropriate;
    • Developing firm criteria for assessing if companies are moving toward “zero tolerance” of facilitation payments;
    • The SFO’s process of “giving advice to companies and accepting self-reports of wrongdoing also needs to be more transparent and better defined;”
    • On corporate monitors, providing guidance regarding when and under what terms one would be sought; and
    • On public procurement, “consider undertaking a systematic approach to allow relevant agencies to easily access information on companies sanctioned for corruption such as through the establishment of a national debarment register. . . ”

    The Working Group plans to follow up on certain issues including those related to guidance under the Bribery Act, facilitation payments and settlements.

    Print Friendly