International Market Place Regulations, Coursework Example

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Court and Citation: SEC Litigation Release no. 20829

Facts: Siemens, a German company, violated the FCPA in giving bribes to government officials of foreign countries to achieve business. It created detailed payment schemes to protect its corrupt payments while the company flourished.

Legal issue: Is this legal according to FCPA?

Holding: Yes

Explanation / Reason: corruption and bribery is illegal according to FCPA with the Anti bribery conventions being against foreign bribery.

Court Order: Siemens Company to pay a total of $ 1.6 billion as a sanction for the fraud related charges and $350 million in disgorgement to the SEC. Siemens Company will pay the US Department of Justice a sum of $450 million, and $569 million to the office of the prosecutor General. Siemens entered a court order for permanent enjoinment from future violations of section 30A, 13(b), (2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the exchange act. It subjected to a four-year independent monitoring.

1. The penalties are as high just as in other bribery cases. The company subjected to a trial period just as in earlier penalties
2. The German group had significant US businesses and other foreign governments, and therefore, had to adhere to the FCPA regulations. No.
3. The Us government has no right to intrude into the internal affairs of the company.

2) Soleimany v. Soleimany

Court and Citation: (1998) OB 785 Court of Appeal-civil Decision

Facts: disputes arose between a plaintiff who organized export of Persian carpets from Iran in violation of the revenue and export control laws, and a defendant who sold the carpets in England or else where

Legal issue: who was guilty? Is it the obvious tuff who exported carpets illegally, or the defendant who violated the rights of two parties in a business?

Holding: no

Explanation / Reason: the court would not recognize an agreement between two businesspersons or rather persons’ to come into their differences, as the original protocol used to split the proceedings. An arbitration agreement in relation to illegal dispute not recognized.

Court Order: case dismissed

1. The whole case surrounded by cases of illegalities and the arbitration could not be awarded.
2. The court had to dig deep to find the sources of the carpets in dispute and all the protocols if followed by the time they sell. This enabled the court to consider the origin of the dispute and
3. A businessperson carrying out an illegal function should not try out the court, as such, arbitrations not recognized, and the case may turn back on you.

3) Diamond v Chakrabarty

Court and Citation: 447 U.S. 303 (1980) United States supreme courts

Facts: Ananda Chakrabery engineered a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil. He wanted to patent his creation under Title 35U.S. code section. The U.S. patent office (PTO) rejected the claim saying that living things are not patent under section 101 yet; the code section 101 says that whoever invents any new substance, or a useful process may obtain a patent.

Legal issue: how is the creation of a live, human-made organism patentable under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101?

Holding: yes

Explanation / Reason: the bacterium manufactured was useful since it contained two energy- generating plasmids that helped in hydrocarbon degradation and breakdown of multiple components of crude oil. It was a new invention of paramount importance in the manufacturing industry, which met the conditions of title 35 U.S.C sections 101.

Court Order: judgment of the court of customs and patents appeals affirmed allowing patenting of living organisms in the US under title 35 U.S.C sections 101. Ananda Chakrabery allowed patenting his creation under the mentioned title.

1. Less developed nations agree with the majority. They aim at ensuring democracy of the public more than at individual levels.
2. It is an admirable thing. Without the crude oil-ingesting organism, the horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could have difficulties in disposing the hydrocarbons and crude oil produced while carrying out their processes.
3. This is to encourage more researches to take place as inventions encouraged too.

4) Mobile Communications Services, Inc. v. WebReg, RN.

Court and Citation: administrative panel decision (February 24 2008) case no D2005-1304

Facts: A mobile communication service Inc. did its services under the name Mobilcom. The trade name ‘mobilcom.com’, registered by Web Reg, who had offered to sell the name at $35,000 as per their pattern of selling trade names. Mobilcon claimed that the name entirely consisted of their trade name and that webReg had no right to use it.

Legal issue: the domain name registered by WebReg, is it identical it confusingly similar to the Mobilecom Company?

Holding: yes

Explanation /Reason: the panel believes that the respondent’s conduct falls into the latter category. Even searches at Google could show that mobile.com is a trademark that registered. The complainant fulfils the requirements under paragraph 4 (a) of the UDRP.

Court Order: the domain name ‘mobile.com’ transferred to the compliant, i.e.| the mobile communication service Inc.

1. No, yes they should.
2. Yes, it registers all its activities.
3. It interested in selling the domain name, which identified by Google as a registered trademark.

5) Comite Inter professional du Vin de Champagne v. Wineworths Group, Ltd.,

Court and Citation: 2 N.Z.L.R 432 (1991) high court of wellington

Facts: an Australia company seeks to sell wine made in Australia. The wine made from grapes grown in Australia and packed in bottles with the word champagne on the label. A group of Champaign producers from the French department sought to prevent Australians from passing off as wine produced in the regions of champagnes.

Legal issue: should the plaintiffs allowed to claim property right in the word Champagne?

Holding: yes

Explanation/ Reason: the court holds market research studies that the content of drink matters in the usage of the label or trademark. Champaign is not a generic word usage in the New Zealand.

Court Order: the court enjoined the Australians defendants from using the word champagne in New Zealand.

1.  It is subjective; the trademark law is subjective of the country.
2.  Subjective, it is the job of the bureau of statistics to carry out surveys.
3.  In order to protect their trademark.

 6) Walt Disney Co. v. Beijing publishing press

Court and Citation: Zhongling zcichu No. 141(1994) Beijing First Intermediate Court

Facts: Beijing publishing press, Beijing children’s’ publishing press, and the Beijing distributors published and distributed the collection of Beijing moral tales. They reproduced various Chinese films without authorization from the copyright.

Legal issue: were procedures of registration of copy right completed in the right manner?

Holding: yes

Explanation / Reason: the allegation that the Beijing publishing press had a copyright from a contract with the Maxwell communications corporation was not true. Maxwell was bankrupt by then, and all this turned to be bribery and corruption issues.

Court Order: 1)Beijing publish press and Beijing distributors cease all publications of the collection of Disney moral tales 2)Beijing publishing press make a public apology to the Walt Disney company in a Chinese newspaper published and printed throughout china. 3)Beijing make a compensation payment to the Disney company of RMB 227,094.14 Yuan and pay an amercement of 50,000 Yuan.4) confiscation of RMB 500004 Yuan of illegal income earned by the Beijing Distribution office 5) Defendants to bear RMB 40,000 Yuan of Disney’s attorneys fees.

1. The Maxwell’s was bankrupt at that period.
2. The case follows the Maxwell’swho were to pay for the enforceable IPRs but are not functioning due to bankruptcy.
3. Yes., All fines subjected from copyright law, Yes

7) Equal employment opportunity commission v. Arabian American Oil co.

Court and Citation: 499 U.S. 244 (1991) United States supreme courts

Facts: Bouresian hired by ASC as an engineer in Houston in 1978. He requested a transfer a year later to work for Aramco in Saudi Arabia where he worked until 1984 when discharged. He sues Aramco and ASC on the ground that the harassment and his discharge followed due to his race, religion, and national origins.

Legal issue: were the intensions of the congress to protect title VII to apply to the U S citizens employed by American employers outside the United States?

Holding: no

Explanation/Reason: the petitioner was not able to present sufficient evidence that congress intended Title VII to apply in America only.

Court Order: the judgment of the court of appeal affirmed.

1. The federal law will have extraterritorial applications as stated.
2. The court applied contextual construction legal analysis.
3. No

8) Reyes- Gaona V. North Carolina Growers Ass”n, Inc

Court and Citation: 250 f 3d 861 (2001) United States court of appeals (4th Cif.)

Facts: Plaintiff Luis Reyes Gaona, a Mexican aged 40 sued North Carolina Growers association (NCGA), an American corporation. They did not accepting him a place on the list of workers seeking for employment because he was over 40 years.

Legal issue: does the age discrimination in employment acts (ADEA) allow foreign nationals in foreign countries to apply for jobs in the United States?

Holding: no

Explanation / Reason: neither ADEA nor VII apply for non-citizen employment outside the United States. The job applied for was in the United States and the court’s decision based on country of employment, and not where the decision is made. The amendments do not reach the case at the bar since extra territory applications not done prior to job application.

Court Order: Mr. Reyes Gaona’s case dismissed, by the affirmation of the fourth circuit court of appeals.

1. The EEOC claimed that the Reyes Gaona did not apply extra territorial application of the ADEA since the job he was applying for was in the United States.
2. No
3. The court looks at the place of employment instead of the place the decision made.

9) Mahoney v. RFE/RL, Inc

Court and Citation: 47 F. 3d 447 (1995) United States Court of appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit

Facts: The RFE/RL Company enters into a collective bargain with unions representing employees in Munich. They argue that American working at Munich should no longer retire at the age of 65, but the council says this would discriminate employees based on nationality.

Legal issue: do the foreign laws’ exceptions apply in overseas companies in order to comply with the act of rather breach bargaining agreements in foreign nations?

Holding: no

Explanation / Reason: the RFE/RL would cause a violation of rules in others countries unless the exemption applied in these countries. The legislation follows country laws and not foreign rules.

Court Order: the case dismissed

1. Yes. Then the case dismissed
2. RFE/RL did not agree with the CBA provisions but rather had their own interests to favor the Americans. CBA started in 1984.
3. The law enforcers look at the foreign law exemptions to the Acts states.

10) Sarei V. Rio Tinto

Court and Citation: 487 F.3d 1193 (2007) United States court appeals (9th Cir.)

Facts: Rio Tinto, an international mining group operated a mine in Bounganville, Papua New Guinea from 1972-1989. The residents of Bouganville alleged damages due to the operations of mine. The war that arose due to the mine caused damages. The mine said to have contributed to pollution of the waterways affecting the residents’ physical and mental health. The workers at the mine enslaved. Plaintiffs sued Rio Tinto Co. for alleged war crimes, human rights abuse, and racial discrimination under the ATS Act.

Legal issue: are the plaintiff’s allegations subject matters of jurisdiction under ATS?

Holding: yes

Explanation / Reason: the court found that the alleged violations were specific, universal, and obligatory nominal of the international law. Rio Tinto directed and aided the army in carrying out war crimes against the residents.

Court Order: the allegations of the plaintiffs were true and they could bring claims against the U.S. defendant for violations of international law under the ATS.

1. The standard of human rights
2. Yes
3. Yes

11)INA Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Court and Citation: 8 Iran- US CL trib. Rep. 373 (1985) Iran- United States Claims Tribunal.

Facts: The INA Corporation, on May 1978, acquired 20% of the shares of Bimok Shagh, an Iran insurance company. This approved by Central Insurance of Iran and INA paid 20 million risks for the shares of Shargh. In 1979 Ina Sued of the ongoing value of shares at the Shargh company together with interest and legal costs.

Legal issue: should INA Company accept the amount of its initial investment in the shargh as the best available indicator of the value of the company one year later?

Holding: yes

Explanation/Reason: the international law undergoes a gradual reappraisal in case of a large-scale rationalization. The tribunal and international law admit compensation in an amount equivalent to the market value of the investment.

Court Order: the Iran –Unites states claim tribunal awards INA Corporation the initial investment amount plus a simple interest of 8.5 % per annum from the date of rationalization.

1. One compensated according to the fair market value of the investment.
2. No. he only exempts the rule in the case of a large-scale nationalization of a lawful character.
3. The compensation only measured in terms of the market value and not in the original agreement.

12) David B.P: aswuatino et al V. \united States

Court and Citation: 544 U.S. 349 (2005) United States supreme courts.

Facts: the defendants convicted of smuggling liquor into Canada evading the Canadian liquor importation taxes.

Legal issue: how does violation of the federal fraud statute defraud the tax from a foreign country?

Holding: yes

Explanation / Reason: the revenue rule bars courts from enforcing tax laws of foreign sovereigns. Neither the anti smuggling statute nor the U.S. states that the petitioners’ scheme fails outside the terms of the wire fraud statute.

Court Order: the Supreme Court affirmed the case and the defendants prosecuted back at home.

1. No
2. Yes
3. Prosecuting Americans will mean taking a responsibility that is not yours while collecting foreign taxes is stealing, taking what is not yours.