The Financial Conduct Authority's new competition powers and an enforcement focus on wholesale banking are important issues for many financial institutions in the UK. IFLR and Shearman & Sterling presents this discussion on key topics:
• The enhanced self-reporting obligation in respect of potential competition law infringements;
• FCA’s ability to switch between its FSMA and competition enforcement powers;
• Flow of information between the FCA and other regulators (including the EU Commission);
• Choice of FSMA vs Enterprise Act market studies;
• FCA’s ability to resolve issues itself vs make a reference to the CMA;
• Likelihood of FCA Competition Act cases; and
• Civil litigation implications.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (“NPAs”) are a relatively recent but significant tool U.S. regulators are increasingly relying on to resolve allegations of corporate misconduct. In short, DPAs and NPAs are agreements by the government to forego enforcement action in exchange for the company’s agreement not to commit further violations of the law and to perform specific compliance and cooperation obligations. In 2011, U.S. regulators have already secured nearly $2 billion in fines and other penalties and are on pace to equal or exceed the number of investigations resolved using these agreements in prior years. In addition to the DOJ’s Fraud Section, which uses DPAs and NPAs as its primary means of resolving corporate FCPA investigations, various other entities including the SEC, DOJ’s Antitrust Division, and numerous U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are increasingly using DPAs and NPAs to settle corporate investigations.
But all settlements are not created equal. Accordingly, companies must actively manage the process to secure the best outcome possible under the facts and circumstances unique to each case. A company’s action (or lack thereof) can often determine whether it receives a DPA or NPA, whether the government requires a corporate monitor, and the amount of fines and penalties that must be paid. In this webcast, practitioners with decades of experience with DPAs/NPAs, corporate monitorships, internal investigations, and compliance programs will discuss the life cycle of an agreement, from start to finish.
Join us on an important call to hear from industry groups on why AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile is bad news for competition and would hurt the wireless industry and the economy. We all know this takeover is not about spectrum. Decreased mobile competition means higher prices and less innovation. Data plans become more expensive while networks get slower. Join the fight to keep the mobile industry innovative and competitive.
As the debate surrounding the proposed AT&T / T-Mobile merger continues to rage, small providers, public interest groups, consumer rights organizations, and antitrust experts have banded together to speak with one unified voice, calling for a block of the merger that surely represents a major step toward putting Ma-Bell back together. In anticipation of next Thursday’s House testimony, our panel of experts has prepared a unique, interactive webinar to serve as a background briefing on this pressing issue.
Public Knowledge's Director of Government Affairs Ernesto Falcon, Sprint's Director of Government Affairs Trey Hanbury, Cellular South's Manager of Public Policy Ben Moncrief and RTG's General Counsel Carri Bennet.
Public Knowledge is a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group working to defend citizens' rights in the emerging digital culture.
The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG) is a trade association representing rural wireless carriers who each serve less than 100,000 subscribers.
Cellular South is the nation's largest privately held wireless provider with approximately 1,100 employees residing in the Southeastern United States.
Sprint Nextel offers a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications services and served more than 49.9 million customers at the end of 2010.