The UK Bribery Act 2010 is far-reaching; it has a worldwide scope, and focuses on corrupt payments to all persons – whether governmental, private citizens, agents, companies or employees, within the UK and overseas. It also penalizes the receipt of bribes whereas the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) does not. While this legislation overlaps significantly with the FCPA, it diverges in several important ways.
Click herefor more information regarding the similarities and differences of the UK Bribery Act and FCPA.
The largest gathering of the international legal community in the world – a meeting place of more than 4,000 lawyers and legal professionals from around the world;
More than 200 working sessions covering all areas of practice relevant to international legal practitioners;
The opportunity to generate new business with many of the leading firms in the world’s key cities;
Registration fee which entitles you to attend as many working sessions throughout the week as you wish;
Continuing legal education and continuing professional development; and
A variety of social functions providing ample opportunity to network and see the city’s key sights.
For more information, please see complete brochure here.
Being in the service industry, our reputation is our greatest asset. We have spent over 40 years building goodwill in the name BDP, which has come to represent the best service the global logistics industry has to offer. To maintain that, we prosecute infringers, who can destroy what we have spent years creating through our dedication to each and every client.
Click here to read about a recent matter involving the BDP tradename and market confusion caused by a freight forwarding company named BPD International in Florida.
BDP International, Inc. will be hosting a Women's Networking Breakfast on June 23, 2010 in Philadelphia. This event features a panel of dynamic women who are leaders in global business. Each panelist will share her story complete with the challenges faced and opportunities seized pioneering her own path to success. For more information, please contact BDP Legal.
Pennsylvania Governor Rendell recently proposed a 4% sales tax on warehouse services. This sales tax gives our competitors in surrounding states an immediate 4% market advantage. The proposed increase in transport and storage costs in and out of Pennsylvania is bad for jobs and bad for tax collections; warehouse firms and their customers will sharply reduce Pennsylvania operations and the citizens of Pennsylvania will be worse off. Pennsylvania companies would then be forced to recommend warehousing in more strategic regions to the detriment of Pennsylvania.
Therefore, we ask that you join us in opposing Governor Rendell’s proposed sales tax on warehouse services, and assist us in protecting jobs and keeping funds in Pennsylvania. Please send a letter to your local Pennsylvania representative today!
The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Thursday released for comment a notice of proposed rulemaking that would relieve nearly 3,300 FMC-licensed non-vessel-operating common carriers from publishing tariffs for rates they charge for cargo shipments.
The exemption was requested by the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America Inc. in a petition filed on July 31, 2008.
The rule proposes to establish an instrument called a "negotiated rate arrangement." Licensed NVOs who enter into negotiated rate arrangements with customers would be exempted from publishing their rates in tariffs, so long as they meet several conditions, including:
• NVOs would continue to publish "rules tariffs" containing terms and conditions governing shipments.
• NVOs would be required to provide those rules to the public free of charge.
• Rates NVOs charge must be agreed to and memorialized in writing by the date cargo is received for shipment.
• NVOs must retain documentation of the agreed rate and terms for each shipment for a period of five years, and must make that documentation available promptly to the commission on request.
Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky Jr., and commissioners Rebecca F. Dye and Michael A. Khouri voted to issue the proposed rulemaking, while Joseph E. Brennan dissented.
In February when the commission voted to initiate the rulemaking Brennan said granting the petition would give NVOs an unfair advantage over vessel-operating carriers and would effectively exempt NVOs from FMC regulatory oversight.
The FMC summarizes comments for and against the change in its 27-page notice of proposed rulemaking.
Those supporting it included Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Jerry Weller, R-Ill. Welch and Weller said publication is expensive, adds little value to the shipping public, and is out of step with the modern ocean transportation environment. Sanders noted that tariff-publishing requirements have not been updated for a number of years and cost freight forwarders time and resources.
The Department of Transportation said it has supported exemption of NVOs from tariff filing since such relief was first sought. The agency said the FMC’s exemption for NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs) does not go far enough and imposes unnecessary burdens and costs.
The Justice Department also said it supports an exemption for NVOs from all tariff publication requirements in order to produce the greatest competitive benefits.
A number of ocean transportation intermediaries said complying with tariff publication requirements is expensive and NVO customers do not request tariff information and do not rely on tariffs, as rates are negotiated individually.
OTIs gave average annual tariff publication costs ranging from $2,000 to $240,000, the latter number from DHL Global Forwarding based on stated average monthly costs of $20,000.
Some OTIs said NSAs have not provided adequate relief from tariff publication requirements, and that as NSAs are required to be filed with the FMC and their essential terms published in a tariff, they do not provide cost savings. Some OTIs state that shippers balk at the contractual commitments required by NSAs.
A number of OTIs state that since the terrorist attacks of 2001, they have added costs associated with security requirements such as Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism certification and the 24-hour advance manifest reporting requirement. They said they need “regulatory offsets” so that their limited resources can be invested in programs that benefit the shipping public and contribute to the nation’s security.
The National Industrial Transportation League, one of the largest shipper organizations, said shippers rarely review or consult tariffs to determine ocean transportation pricing, and that they function more as a costly regulatory afterthought. The NIT League suggested the proposed exemption would likely promote competition by reducing regulatory costs for NVOs, increasing their potential to offer competitive ocean rates to shippers.
The New York-New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders & Brokers Association Inc. said the tariff publication requirement inhibits the beneficial effects of competition for shippers, and is costly and unnecessary. It said NSAs are not a viable option for most NVO movements.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association said FMC regulations require NVOs to keep complete accounting records for every shipment, and tariff publication requirements duplicate that requirement. TIA said intermediaries often act as both forwarder and NVO on different segments of a movement, and the way that these arrangements are expressed in tariff language can cause confusion.
Opponents of the rulemaking, include firms such as Stan Levy Consulting and the tariff publishers: Distribution Publications Inc. (DPI), and Global Maritime Transportation Services Inc. (GMTS).
Levy said while shippers may not use tariffs on a daily basis, they provide a framework governing shipments so that when there is a cost or service issue, there is a legal tariff binding on all parties. And it said if the exemption is granted, NVO shippers would lose the ability to use the FMC as a forum for complaints, contrary to the intent of the Shipping Act. Levy said it would be more appropriate for Congress to revise the act.
DPI and GMTS said the tariffs published on their Web site are frequently used to verify rates in order to settle disputes and that the information is essential for the FMC to monitor NVO activities and protect the public from violations of Section 10 of the Shipping Act. GMTS said the exemption would shift the cost and burden of enforcement away from the industry to the FMC and the public.
Florida Shipowners’ Group Inc., commenting on behalf of Bernuth Lines, CMA CGM, Crowley Caribbean Services, Seaboard Marine, Sea Freight Line, and Tropical Shipping, agreed with one of the points raised by Brennan. Because NVOs compete with vessel operators, eliminating tariff publication requirements for NVOs while leaving them in place for vessel-operating common carriers (VOCCs) would affect the competitive balance between them. Costs borne by VOCCs to develop and maintain vessels, equipment and infrastructure needed to move international trade, dwarfs the costs borne by NVOs to comply with tariff requirements, they argued. Congress chose to retain the tariff publication requirement on both NVOs and VOCCs, and the FMC should not remove that requirement, they said.
The FMC asked that comments on the proposed rule be submitted by June 4. If an interested party requests an opportunity to present oral comments to the commission by May 14, the FMC said it will hold a public meeting to receive those comments on May 24.
The global anti-corruption movement is making headway. The United States is often said to lead the world in this area. Here IBN speaks exclusively to US Department of Justice head of enforcement Mark Mendelsohn.
A major principle of criminal accounting since time immemorial remains in force: for every recipient of a bribe, there is a giver. The dark side of human nature has always found a way, and many bet it will still succeed. Or can determined efforts alter the equation?
The White House drops its proposed reform of "check-the-box" tax rules. Will it pick it up again?
When the Obama Administration released its budget for fiscal 2011 last week, tax executives at U.S. multinationals breathed a sigh of relief. Conspicuously missing from the budget was a controversial proposal to reform the "check-the-box" tax rule, a loophole in the tax code that companies have been exploiting since its creation during the Clinton presidency. According to the Office of Management and Budget, tightening the loophole would have put an extra $87 billion into Treasury Department coffers over the next decade.
The check-the-box rule allows companies simply to mark off several items on an Internal Revenue Service form to declare that their foreign subsidiaries should be treated as disregarded entities, rather than corporations with passive income that is subject to U.S. taxes. The effect is "to make foreign subsidiaries 'disappear' for U.S. tax purposes," said IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman last year.
SOURCE: Hunt & Hunt | Customs Trade and Transport Law e-alert | 5 February 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Andrew Hudson, Partner Brendan Sheehan, Lawyer
The standardised international trading terms known as Incoterms are being revised and are likely to be finalised later this year and then take effect 1 January 2011.
What are Incoterms?
Incoterms is short for “International Commercial Terms”. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) introduced the first version of Incoterms in 1936. The current version of Incoterms is called Incoterms 2000.
Incoterms are extensively used in international sales contracts as they are widely recognised and understood commercially. Incoterms determine critical issues such as who will pay for the carriage of the goods and the point that risk passes between the parties.
Even if you are not experienced with using Incoterms, you may be familiar with FOB, which is the Free On Board Incoterm. FOB is commonly misused by parties and often other Incoterms such as FCA or FAS are more appropriate. If you are presented with contracts that contain Incoterms and you do not understand the meaning of the Incoterms you should seek legal advice, as the use of the appropriate Incoterm can minimise your risks and obligations.
What are the proposed changes?
Frank Reynolds, the US Delegate to the ICC’s Incoterms Committee has been providing International Trade Law News with updates on the proposed changes to Incoterms 2000. According to International Trade Law News, Mr Reynolds has indicated that the new version of Incoterms will be entitled “Incoterms 2010”.Incoterms 2010 are expected to be more user-friendly and the explanations of each Incoterm will be expanded to assist users of the Incoterms. Some of the specific changes that are expected include:
Clear distinction to be made between the multimodal Incoterms and Incoterms for marine use.
Cargo security to be covered to the extent possible with differing regulatory systems.
Elimination of some of the current 13 Incoterms. However, despite some speculation, Incoterm FAS is likely to remain.
Inclusion of a new term for use in domestic transactions and transactions where no export or
import clearance obligations exist.
What do you need to do?
Incoterms 2010 are not expected to take effect until 1 January 2011 and the final version has not yet been settled. We will continue to update you on the progress of the revisions. In the meantime, we recommend that you ensure, and if necessary seek legal advice to ensure, that your commercial trading terms accurately reflect the transaction.
PHILADELPHIA, February 12, 2010 - BDP International, a leading privately held global logistics and transportation services firm, has joined the United Nations Global Compact, a strategic policy initiative for businesses committed to aligning their operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor standards, the environment and anti-corruption.
"BDP is committed to good corporate citizenship in the global community," said BDP President and CEO Richard J. Bolte, Jr. "The Global Compact offers a unique strategic platform for reinforcing that commitment by supporting and advancing these principles within our own organization and sphere of influence.
"These principles will become part of the strategy, culture and day-to-day operations of our company, as well as our engagement in collaborative projects which advance the broader development goals of the United Nations, particularly the Millennium Development Goals."
Established in 2000, the Global Compact is now the largest corporate citizenship and sustainability initiative in the world with more than 7,700 corporate signatories and stakeholders from over 130 countries.
Companies importing into the European Union are now seeing clear signs of enforcement of the REACH regulation that was put into effect 1 June 2007. Incidences of shipments being blocked at ports and very thorough site inspectionsare being carried out, with one Hungarian company noting that inspectors had even suggested taking samples of chemicals for testing. These and other examples of enforcement were highlighted at the European Chemical Agency's (ECHA) third stakeholder day on 3 December 2009.
REACH director at the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Erwin Annys, told delegates that its members had reported a significant increase in the level of activity concerning chemicals inspections this past year. The number of inspections and the value of penalties associated with non-compliance, however, is vastly biased depending on the EU Member State.
The UK's penalty regime for violations of the REACH regulation is one of the strictest in Europe, joined by Ireland and Malta, with conviction resulting in the possibility of an unlimited fine and up to two years in jail.
Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia impose administrative penalties only, while 13 other countries apply a mixture of administrative and criminal sanctions including Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands.Click hereto review the penalties given by each of the EU Member states.
Industry representatives remain concerned about the lack of uniformity and precedent security of REACH enforcement. Specifically, fee structures are linked to a country's penalty regime without any consideration of the volume of production, and there appears to be no clear distinction between deliberate violations and small errors when penalties are determined.
Catherine Muldoon joined BDP International, Inc. (“BDP”) in 2002 as General Counsel, US and was named Chief Legal Officer in January of 2004. Click here to read more.
