Nikkei Asian Review: ”Japanese company needs to drop arrogant stance to survive”

Sharp’s head office in Abeno Ward, Osaka

”………………TOKYO — Sharp decided Thursday to accept a takeover offer from Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry, becoming the first major Japanese electronics maker to be acquired by a foreign company.

While Sharp will seek to resurrect itself under the umbrella of the Taiwanese contract electronics manufacturer also known as Foxconn, the key to successful rehabilitation will be the ability of the Osaka-based company to drop its arrogant stance.

US Department of Justice (Speech at Yale): ”Individual Accountability for Antitrust Crimes”

DOJ logo
”………….Last year, the Antitrust Division obtained over $2.5 billion in criminal fines from financial firms prosecuted for antitrust violations in the foreign-currency exchange spot market. Although the fines imposed in that investigation were the largest ever obtained by the Division, we have obtained substantial fines in other investigations. Our automobile parts, air transportation, and LCD investigations, which collectively resulted in more than $5 billion in fines, are just a few examples. Foreign competition enforcers, such as the Directorate General for Competition in Europe and the Council for Economic Defense in Brazil, have also imposed very large fines for cartel violations.

Such fines have occasionally sparked a debate about whether corporate accountability and corporate fines are a meaningful punishment for antitrust crimes. For instance, I participated in a panel discussion on this topic at the Bundeskartellamt’s Berlin Conference last year. During the discussion, a panelist provocatively suggested that competition enforcers are “drunk on fines” and suggested that corporate fines are not serving their intended deterrent purpose.

Congressional Research Service: “Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities”

Congressional Research Service

”…………….Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law).

FCPA Blog: “Former Olympus USA Compliance Chief Collects $51 Million for Blowing the Whistle on Global Bribes”


“First-hand details of the global pay to play kickback scheme at Olympus were brought to the government’s attention by the company’s former corporate compliance officer. John Slowik filed a federal lawsuit in New Jersey under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claim Act and similar state laws. Lawyers at the Kenney McCafferty law firm represented the whistleblower.

Diversity Action Committee: ”Women stepping up in Singapore boardrooms”

new 160301_women directorship TIEN

”Singapore’s top companies have led from the front in helping to remedy one of the blights on the local corporate scene – the under-representation of women on company boards.

A new report has found that across the 30 listed companies comprising the blue chip Straits Times Index (STI), 10.2 per cent of board seats were held by women last year, up from 7.6 per cent in 2014.

Report: ”Does CEO succession Planning Disclosure matter?”

 IRRC INSTITUTE New Report by Annalisa Barrett, Founder and CEO of Board Governance Research LLC. Successful CEO transitions Correlate with More Robust Disclosure, but Succession Planning Disclosure Frequently is Non Existent and Often Inconsistent – A US perspective Executive Summary: ”Shareowners and other stakeholders have been calling for more information about CEO succession planning. This […]