Monster Beats Kopfhorerde http://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:36:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/icon-2.png Monster Beats Kopfhorerde http://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/ 32 32 Research: Rating Action: Moody’s Affirms Aaa/VMIG 1 on Florida Development Finance Corporation (Brightline Florida Passenger Rail Expansion Project) Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/research-rating-action-moodys-affirms-aaa-vmig-1-on-florida-development-finance-corporation-brightline-florida-passenger-rail-expansion-project-revenue-bonds-series-2021a/ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:36:41 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/research-rating-action-moodys-affirms-aaa-vmig-1-on-florida-development-finance-corporation-brightline-florida-passenger-rail-expansion-project-revenue-bonds-series-2021a/
No related data.

© 2022 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.

THE CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES CONSTITUTE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS ON THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF THE ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, INDEBTEDNESS OR SECURITIES ASSOCIATED WITH INDEBTEDNESS, AND THE DOCUMENTS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, THE “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY FAILURE TO MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WHEN DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE THE APPLICABLE PUBLICATION OF MOODY’S RATINGS SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS COVERED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. THE CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“RATINGS”) AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACTS. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE MODEL-BASED QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE AND DO NOT PROVIDE ANY RECOMMENDATION TO BUY, SELL OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF ANY INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE CARE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL CAREFULLY MAKE HIS OWN RESEARCH AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS CONSIDERED FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING OR SALE.

MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WILL BE UNINTENDED AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE ANY CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS OF MOODY’S WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT, YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY NOT BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, RECONDITIONED, TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISTRIBUTED , REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR FUTURE USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER, OR BY ANY MEANS, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF MOODY’S .

MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, RATINGS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANYONE AS A REFERENCE AS THIS TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN A MANNER THAT COULD CONSIDER AS A REFERENCE.

All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. However, due to the possibility of human or mechanical error and other factors, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY’S takes all necessary measures to ensure that the information it uses to assign a credit rating is of sufficient quality and comes from sources that MOODY’S considers to be reliable including, where applicable, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in any case independently verify or validate the information received as part of the rating process or the preparation of its Publications.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim all liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential or incidental loss or damage whatsoever , arising out of or relating to the information contained herein or the use or inability to use such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is informed in advance of the possibility of such loss or damage, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of actual or potential profits or (b) any loss or damage occurring when the financial instrument concerned does not not subject to a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim all liability for any direct or compensatory loss or damage to any person or entity, including but not limited to limit, any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability which, for the avoidance of doubt, cannot be excluded by law) on the part of, or any contingency within the control or beyond the control of MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising out of or in connection with the information contained herein or the use or inability to use this information.

NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, RATINGS, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER.

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a credit rating agency wholly owned by Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby declares that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred shares rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to the assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for rating opinions credit and the services it renders fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to ensure the independence of credit ratings and Moody’s Investors Service credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between MCO directors and rated entities, and between entities that hold Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and that have also publicly disclosed to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5% , are published annually on www .moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy”.

Additional Terms for Australia Only: Any publication in Australia of this material is in accordance with the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S subsidiary, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (if applicable). This document is intended for supply only to “wholesale customers” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing to the document as a representative of a “wholesale customer” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly distribute this document or its contents to “retail customers” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion of the creditworthiness of a debt security of the issuer, and not of the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security available to investors in detail.

Additional Terms for Japan Only: Moody’s Japan KK (“MJKK”) is a wholly owned subsidiary credit rating agency of Moody’s Group Japan GK, which is wholly owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan KK (“MSFJ”) is a wholly owned subsidiary credit rating agency of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Accordingly, the credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are non-NRSRO credit ratings. Non-NRSRO credit ratings are assigned by an entity that is not an NRSRO and therefore the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under US law. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.

MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stocks rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to the assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit rating opinions and the services it renders a fee ranging from 100 000 JPY to around 550,000,000 JPY.

MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to meet Japanese regulatory requirements.

]]>
USC Gould School of Law Announces New Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/usc-gould-school-of-law-announces-new-bachelor-of-science-in-legal-studies/ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:00:00 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/usc-gould-school-of-law-announces-new-bachelor-of-science-in-legal-studies/

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–As the law becomes an increasingly integral part of society, the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California has introduced a new undergraduate degree: the Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies. This innovative degree program prepares students to understand how law shapes modern culture and explore emerging employment opportunities, while benefiting from a unique multidisciplinary education.

The new BS in Legal Studies is the first four-year bachelor’s degree at USC Gould to give undergraduates a comprehensive education in legal infrastructure and law, and examine their societal impact. The degree also provides the skills and knowledge to excel in a wide variety of roles that intersect with the law but do not require you to be a practicing lawyer.

“This new undergraduate degree underscores USC Gould’s strategic vision and continues the tradition of innovation, equity, and excellence that is part of our history,” said Dean Andrew Guzman. “Students who choose the BS in Legal Studies will be well positioned to succeed in both the public and private sectors. An understanding of our legal system and the rule of law will be an important asset throughout their careers. The new program exemplifies USC Gould’s mission, dedicated to training students through interdisciplinary and clinical education to make impactful contributions to the world around them.

According to Professor Bob Rasmussen, who oversees undergraduate education at Gould, while law is at the heart of society, lawyers should not be the sole guardians of the legal system, and the legal profession should be an effort of collaboration between lawyers and educated citizens about how the law affects society.

“The law cannot be left to lawyers alone. Part of the job of a great undergraduate education is to help people understand the society they are going to belong to, shape and lead,” says Rasmussen.

Currently, USC Gould offers more than 25 undergraduate law courses, in addition to its legal studies minor, a law and social justice minor, a law and migration studies minor, and a new law and technology minor. Students in Gould’s minor programs come from more than two dozen majors at USC. According to Maddy Zamany, director of undergraduate programs at Gould, the degree deepens the law school‘s popular undergraduate offerings.

Courses in the BS in Legal Studies program span multiple disciplines, including technology, sociology, and economics, with future plans to collaborate more with various USC schools and departments on pressing global, national, and local issues. Students will also be required to engage in an internship to reinforce their practical experiences.

For more information on the BS in Legal Studies, visit gould.law/bs-legal-studies or contact undergraduate@law.usc.edu.

About USC Gould Law School

USC Gould School of Law is a top-20 private law school renowned for its academic excellence and world-class faculty. USC Gould is known for its diverse and collegial student body, leadership in clinical education, and supportive and global alumni network. Located in Los Angeles, one of the nation’s top legal markets and a hub for major law and entertainment firms, The Gould School offers a dynamic laboratory for legal education.

]]> Reviews | Why Watergate-era campaign finance laws failed https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/reviews-why-watergate-era-campaign-finance-laws-failed/ Mon, 20 Jun 2022 23:12:00 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/reviews-why-watergate-era-campaign-finance-laws-failed/
Placeholder while loading article actions

Ellen L. Weintraub is a commissioner with the Federal Election Commission.

Burglars who broke into Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex 50 years ago sparked cover-ups, investigations, constitutional crises, presidential resignation, profound damage to Americans’ faith in government and a series of bipartisan laws aimed at restoring that faith. One of those laws created a small federal agency to “follow the money,” the Federal Election Commission, where I work.

These laws also triggered an almost immediate reaction in the Supreme Court, starting with its Buckley vs. Valeo decision in 1976 and accelerating in recent years. The court ruling last month in FEC vs. Ted Cruz for Senate, who allows donors to slip money directly into the pocket of an elected official, is the latest scandal but probably not the last.

Watergate player actions were brazenly corrupt. When President Richard M. Nixon’s White House attorney, John Dean, told him that money would be needed to pay for the Watergate burglars’ blackmail demands, Nixon replied“You could win a million dollars. And you could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. I mean, it’s not easy, but it could be done.

It is always shocking to hear a president plotting to raise silent funds to cover up political crimes. But the amounts involved seem almost odd compared to the gigantic sums currently pouring into American politics, much of which is either legalized or authorized by the Supreme Court.

Donald Graham: Watergate resonated because The Post reported the truth

The court has assimilated money with speech, overturned political spending limits and authorized companies. He seems determined to entrench, and frankly celebrate, the power of major donors. It’s surprisingly out of step with public opinion – a 2018 Pew Research Center poll found that 77% of Americans support political donation limits.

The Watergate scandal involved large sums of money, much of it cash, collected clandestinely from private individuals, corporate donors and foreign sources, and delivered to Nixon’s political operation. People and companies have succeeded for follow-up to provide these illegal funds.

Today? Delivering bags of cash to political campaigns remains illegal, as do direct corporate donations to candidates’ campaigns. But over the past twelve years, there has been a proliferation of super PACs so closely associated with candidates that giving super PACs offers virtually the same benefits.

Thanks to the yard 2010 decision in Citizens United v FEC, corporations can legally give these PACs. Individual donors who would be prohibited from giving $3,000 directly to a candidate’s campaign can legally donate millions to a supportive super PAC. And the court insists that’s fine because “independent spending, including that made by businesses, does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

During the 2020 election season, federal fundraising totaled more than $14 billion. While substantial sums have been raised from small donors, it is now common to see individual donors giving millions of dollars. And those are just the ones we know about. Contributions to super PACs must be disclosed, but sophisticated, secretive donors know they can give to ideologically aligned nonprofits that will funnel their money to super PACs without revealing the donors to the public. (Politicians presumably know who their benefactors are.) It has contributed over a billion dollars in black silver flooding American politics in 2020 alone.

The Post’s View: what Watergate can teach us today

The FEC had some Hit to prosecute foreign donors, but I remain concerned that foreign money can enter the system through domestically incorporated but owned and influenced by foreigners.

The FEC bears some responsibility for this sad state of affairs. Lax enforcement and failure to update our regulations to keep up with changing political practices has left the law unenforced and riddled with loopholes. The bipartisan structure of the FEC (six commissioners, with no more than three from any political party) and increased polarization have often thwarted efforts simply to investigate alleged serious violations.

What can be done? The Supreme Court is unlikely to revise its views on corruption, but solutions still exist, if we can muster the political will to enact them.

Congress should reinvigorate languid bills to strengthen disclosure, which would help ensure the transparency the Supreme Court has (so far) vigorously endorsed, and strengthen barriers to foreign spending in our elections. And the FEC needs to update its rules (unchanged from before United Citizens) to meaningfully address the porous relationships between candidates and big-budget super PACs. Stricter enforcement – ​​by the FEC in civil matters and the Department of Justice in criminal matters – is essential.

Watergate is not just the story of a failed burglary. The corruption exposed caused a shock to the political system that brought together government officials from all parties to uncover the truth and attempt to rebuild trust. In these polarized times, a similar rapprochement seems unimaginable. The model is there – but it would require Republicans to work with Democrats, as they did 50 years ago.

]]> What to do when the notice of balance owing from the IRS arrives https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/what-to-do-when-the-notice-of-balance-owing-from-the-irs-arrives/ Mon, 20 Jun 2022 13:11:37 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/what-to-do-when-the-notice-of-balance-owing-from-the-irs-arrives/

Much has been made of the IRS suspending some of its compliance and collection notices in 2022. Specifically, the IRS announced that it would remove many reminder notices of balance owing until the ‘IRS is catching up on processing paper returns, correspondence, and other backlogged items.

But tax professionals and their clients shouldn’t be too comfortable. The IRS cannot suppress approximately 9 million notices that go out every year. These notices are the first in a series of collection notices. In IRS terms, this notice is called the CP14 Notice and Tax Demand.

The CP14 notice is required by law (Internal Revenue Code Section 6303) to be issued within 60 days of the tax assessment by the IRS. The bulk of CP14 notices appear in early June (for 2021 returns, that date was likely June 6, 2022), requesting payment within 21 days.

This notice and demand letter sets the stage for the IRS to enforce the collection. If the taxpayer does not respond to the CP14 notice with payment, the IRS may begin the process of collecting taxes by direct debit or by filing a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. Usually, the IRS will send out a series of reminder notices, called collection notice streams, to request payment before beginning forced collection.

What should you do if your client receives a CP14 notice?

First, don’t ignore it. It’s time to start planning with your client how to resolve the outstanding tax balance. There are five IRS options to consider, and they each have pros and cons. Your client’s situation will determine which option is best.

]]>
Should contracts contain anti-corruption clauses? – Comment https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/should-contracts-contain-anti-corruption-clauses-comment/ Sun, 19 Jun 2022 23:12:56 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/should-contracts-contain-anti-corruption-clauses-comment/

Introduction
Do Vietnamese companies pay attention to the fight against corruption when drafting contracts?
Why include an anti-corruption clause?
What are the consequences of a lack of attention to the fight against corruption when drafting contracts?
Example of an anti-corruption clause​

Comment

Introduction

Corruption can occur in various contractual areas, ranging from employment contracts to business cooperation agreements, and can have a negative influence on the entire implementation of the contract. In recognition of this, companies in countries with a long legal history are more frequently inserting anti-corruption clauses into their contracts. Integrity and transparency between the parties and in the business environment in general are ensured by addressing anti-corruption issues right from the drafting of the contract. Therefore, contracting parties in Vietnam should give this clause the attention it deserves.

Do Vietnamese companies pay attention to the fight against corruption when drafting contracts?

Anti-corruption was not a major concern in drafting contracts in Vietnam until recently, when the country experienced significant integration and international investors expressed interest in expanding their business in the country.

Unlike some developed countries, where companies that commit acts of corruption, bribery or other similar violations are almost certain to be boycotted and even go bankrupt or lose their reputation, in Vietnam almost no company has been inspected or found guilty of corruption. As a result, Vietnamese companies rarely consider or recommend including an anti-corruption clause in their contracts. The old penal code and anti-corruption law in Vietnam had no clear restrictions on the roles and duties of companies in the fight against corruption or the consequences for companies that allow corruption to occur. In other words, in Vietnam, an anti-corruption clause was not a “must-have” when drafting contracts.

However, the Penal Code of 2015 and the Anti-Corruption Law of 2018 have since made significant improvements. Businesses now have responsibilities such as monitoring, detecting and denouncing acts of corruption in a timely manner.(1) In addition, those in positions of power and authority in businesses who engage in corrupt activities listed in the Criminal Code will face the same penalties as government agencies.(2) These stricter legislative guidelines are helping Vietnamese companies change their minds about the need to include anti-corruption clauses in their contracts.

Why include an anti-corruption clause?

First, integrity and trust are inextricably linked. By stipulating an anti-bribery provision, the parties can ensure that during the process of negotiating, drafting, signing and performing the contract, no bribes, gifts or other improper advantages been granted or promised in relation to the contract by a party to competent parties for the purpose of taking advantage of their influence on the operation of the company or organization, or for personal gain(3). Thus, the reliability and feasibility of the contract will be strengthened and become more sustainable.

Second, the anti-bribery provision helps to ensure competitive equality in the marketplace. Parties that follow the law and compete on their own merits will contribute to the growth of the overall market. Instead of being influenced illegally, winning a bid or successfully signing a contract should be based entirely on the actual capabilities of the company and the free will agreement between the parties. Accordingly, contracting parties will intentionally strive to improve their own capacity and quality rather than seek illegal means of reaping instant gains. This is a long-term benefit that will improve both the economy and people’s quality of life.

Finally, it helps organizations avoid major risks. As stated earlier, bribery is regulated under the Penal Code 2015 with the maximum penalty of life imprisonment or death. Although legal persons are exempt from Penal Code sanctions, the Anti-Corruption Act 2018 imposes specific responsibilities on companies to prevent corruption. Therefore, complying with the law by inserting an appropriate clause in the contract would help the company reduce the risk of liability and avoid getting bogged down in complicated legal proceedings.

What are the consequences of a lack of attention to the fight against corruption when drafting contracts?

Termination or unwillingness to enter into a contract is a possibility
Before signing the contract, the company may have to go through a capacity assessment and anti-corruption policy as part of the transaction process. If it is not possible to meet the prerequisites for defining anti-corruption terms or programs, the transaction will be difficult to complete, especially if the company wishes to work with companies and organizations from countries that are signatories to the Convention of Corruption. the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Against bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. Corruption is an obstacle to global collaboration and causes enormous damage to companies that want to integrate.

In case of corruption in the cooperation process, the parties will face serious consequences
Even if the deal is done, the absence of an anti-corruption clause that binds and reminds the parties of their responsibilities and limits will increase the likelihood of a breach.. Corrupt activity can result in criminal convictions, as noted above. Besides the cost of a pecuniary penalty that may be imposed as a result of a prosecuted case, there will inevitably be a significant diversion of time in settling the proceedings. Additionally, if a contract is obtained through corrupt means, any payments made under the contract may be considered proceeds of crime and confiscated by the appropriate authorities.(4)

Loss of key personnel
Sections 353.5 and 354.5 of the Penal Code state that an offender may also be prohibited from holding certain positions or performing specific jobs for one to five years. Normally, those who participate in corrupt activity play a vital role in the business and may be deeply involved in the performance of the contract. These people could face criminal charges under the Criminal Code and be fired, causing significant instability for businesses.

Prestige loss
A company’s reputation can be seriously damaged if it is discovered or someone is convicted of bribery. If it is a publicly traded company, this could have a significant negative impact on its share price.

Economic damage and inefficiency
Bribery is detrimental to equal competition when it is freely given, received or bargained for in entering into a transaction. As a result, legitimate companies find it difficult to obtain official authorization. The economy becomes less efficient as these activities become more popular. Corruption in particular can lead to underdevelopment in developing countries like Vietnam. According to research, when corruption increases or the corruption perception score decreases by one point, direct investment inflows to Vietnam drop by 1.54%.(5)

Sample Anti-Corruption Clause

Companies should pay more attention to creating anti-bribery language given the implications outlined in this article. Below is an example of an anti-corruption clause that companies can include in their contracts, based on the Vietnamese Penal Code of 2015 and the Anti-Corruption Law of 2018.

Article X: fight against corruption

  1. Definition:

“Corruption” means the misuse by an office holder of his official capacity for personal gain. “Corruption”, as used in this anti-corruption clause, includes bribery or embezzlement.

“Officer” means a person appointed, elected or employed under a contract or other form of employment, whether or not receiving a salary, to whom are assigned certain functions and the authority to exercise these functions.

“Bribe” means money, property, other tangible or intangible benefits. Corruption includes giving, accepting, negotiating, promising, accepting or asking for a bribe.

“Embezzlement” means that a person or entity intentionally misappropriates its assets.

  1. No member of the company, nor any officer, member, director, officer, agent, consultant, employee, distributor or other person associated with or acting on behalf of the company (collectively, Covered Persons) shall by any means :
  • directly or through an intermediary, give or promise to pay a bribe to a public official or other person or organization in order to influence them to perform or not perform certain tasks in the interest of or at the request of the bribe giver;
  • directly or through an intermediary, to receive or promise to receive a bribe for itself or for another person or organization as a condition of acting or not acting in the interest or at the request of the bribe giver;
  • broker a bribe; Where
  • abuse his position or power to misappropriate property under his management.
  1. Members of the board of directors or the council of shareholders, presidents, managing directors, deputy managing directors, directors, assistant directors, chief accountants and holders of other managerial positions of public companies must not sign contracts with businesses owned by their spouses, parents, children or siblings; must not allow companies owned by their spouses, parents, children or siblings to bid for contracts of their companies; must not allow their spouses, parents, children or siblings to hold positions of personnel management, accounting, treasurer or warehouseman in their businesses or to participate in transactions, exchanges of goods or of services or the conclusion of contracts with their companies.

Comment

Businesses should be aware that such a clause should not be added solely to conceal or address a target policy. It must be prepared according to the risk appetite of the parties and the objectives they are pursuing.

For more information on this subject, please contact Thi Diep Nguyen, Thi Mai Hoa Duong Where Anh Thu Le to LNT & Partners by phone (+84 28 3821 2357) or email ([email protected], [email protected] Where [email protected]). The LNT & Partners website can be accessed at www.lntpartners.com.

Endnotes

(1) Article 4 of the 2018 anti-corruption law

(2) Articles 353.6, 354.6, 364.6 and 364.7 of the Penal Code 2015

(3) ICC Commission on Corporate Responsibility and Anti-Bribery, and Commission on Business Law and Practice (2012), ICC Anti-Bribery Clause, p 7.

(4) Articles 353.5 and 354.5 of the Penal Code 2015.

(5) Le Thi Lanh, Huynh Thi Uyen Trang (2012)Đo lường mối quan hệ giữa tham nhũng và đầu tư trực tiếp nước ngoài tại Việt Nam, Scientific Journal of the Open University of HCMC, No. 7.

]]>
Airbus CEO says in talks with Qatar over A350 dispute https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/airbus-ceo-says-in-talks-with-qatar-over-a350-dispute/ Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:06:00 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/airbus-ceo-says-in-talks-with-qatar-over-a350-dispute/

Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury speaks during a visit by German Economics and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck to the Airbus research facilities in Hamburg, Germany, on 18 January 2022. REUTERS/Fabian Bimmer

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

DOHA, June 19 (Reuters) – Airbus (AIR.PA) is in talks with Qatar Airways to try to resolve a bitter legal and safety dispute over the A350, the maker’s chief executive said on Sunday.

“There is progress in the sense that we are communicating, we are working with each other,” Guillaume Faury told Reuters on the sidelines of an airlines meeting in Doha. “I think we share the view that a settlement would be a better way to go, but until you have a deal, you don’t have a deal.”

Qatar Airways was not immediately available for comment.

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

The two sides are at odds over the airworthiness of Europe’s newest long-haul jet after damage to its protective outer skin revealed gaps in lightning protection and prompted Qatari authorities to ground more than 20 planes . Read more

Airbus, backed by European regulators, has acknowledged flaws in the quality of several airlines’ jets, but denies the issues pose a safety risk, due to back-up systems.

Qatar Airways, backed by its own national regulator, which has ordered the jets out of service as the problem emerges, insists the safety impact cannot be properly understood until Airbus does did not provide a more in-depth analysis. Read more

In an unprecedented legal battle in London, he is suing Airbus for more than $1 billion in damages, with the value of the carrier’s claim rising by $4 million a day. Read more

“We are in a difficult situation, but we at Airbus are really ready to find a way out,” Faury said.

“We discussed (and) the line of communication was never broken between us and Qatar Airways. I’m not saying it’s easy…but we talk to each other and we continue to support Qatar Airways in its operations. .”

Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker told reporters last month he hoped the dispute could be “resolved out of court”, while remaining harshly critical of jet erosion, which has also affected other carriers.

So far, industry sources say there is no sign of a settlement and a UK judge last month debated whether the dispute could be resolved outside of court anytime soon given the wide gap between the parties.

Faury and Al Baker are both attending the June 19-21 annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Doha, but delegates said there were no signs of direct talks so far. .

Industry sources say the rift is particularly difficult to bridge after it widened in January when Airbus terminated a separate contract with Qatar Airways for its smaller A321neos.

Qatar Airways said the decision to punish the airline for the A350 by canceling a separate deal sets a worrying precedent in the market, but Airbus said it was enforcing its contractual rights.

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Tim Hepher; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel and Jamie Freed

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

]]>
Reinventing age equality at work https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/reinventing-age-equality-at-work/ Sat, 18 Jun 2022 23:44:08 +0000 https://www.monsterbeatskopfhorerde.com/reinventing-age-equality-at-work/

In 2015, the Australian Human Rights Commission found that 27% of older workers had experienced age discrimination at work in the past two years.

Seven years later, little has changed. Age discrimination is still common in the workplace, affecting both older and younger workers.

Aging is not just a problem for older workers, young workers are also at a disadvantage based on age. (Getty Images)

There is an inherent ambivalence in the age discrimination law. It’s as if we can’t decide whether age discrimination is good or bad; acceptable or unacceptable. This plays out, for example, in the broad exceptions age discrimination law.

It’s time to tackle this problem head on.

Building on the Australian Research Council project “Combating age discrimination in employment”, academic experts from Australia, the UK and Turkey have come together to reinvent workplace age equality. From these discussions, we identified eight priorities to ensure a more equal future in the workplace.