On 11 August, an article from Well, Gotshal & Manges LLP in the US is concerned with potential personal liability of those involved in a Delaware limited partnership. It refers to a 30-year-pld case which meant that the individual directors and controlling owners of a corporate general partner of a limited partnership owe direct fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the limited partnership. In other words, it explains, making a limited liability company the general partner of a limited partnership does not in any way limit or shield the directors or controlling owners of that company (as the general partner) from claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the limited partners. It says that a recent case has reaffirmed the principle and is a good reminder of one of the limits of the statutory liability shield available through the formation of a limited liability entity.
On 11 August, Compliance Week reported that the New York Attorney General has accused the National Rifle Association of having a “culture of noncompliance” which allowed NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and 3 other officers to steal $64 million from the organisation over 3 years. Meanwhile, the NRA in its countersuit says it operates in “substantial compliance”. It appears the NRA underwent a top-down internal review employing an outside law firm in late 2018 due to rumours of the impending investigation, which began in February 2019. The article notes that the NRA adopted an updated Statement of Corporate Ethics in January 2020, one that expanded on whistleblower protections, but the article suggests that the timing — 9 months after the official probe began — suggests the changes will be viewed as too little, too late.
On 11 August, an article from Out-Law advised on ad hoc measures that can bolster existing safeguards identified as having flaws by the EU’s highest court. This is because the CJEU not only rejected the Privacy Shield mechanism, but also cast doubt on the ability of businesses to rely on standard contractual clauses (SCC).
An article in Insight Crime on 11 August says that the dismantling of one of the Dominican Republic’s largest drug trafficking rings has revealed that the country serves not only as a cocaine transshipment point but also a money laundering hub. It is said that the ring laundered more than $260 million in drug proceeds during the past 3 years.
On 11 August, Free Malaysia Today and others reported that the former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng, his wife Betty Chew and her business associate Phang Li Koon were charged at the Sessions Court with abuse of power and money laundering.
On 11 August, The Shift reported that the Malta Business Registry has erased the records of over 30,000 companies “struck off” from its online registry system. It expresses concern that doing so risks “wiping out any knowledge of those involved in dodgy deals and their connections”. This, it says, contrasts with the UK, where full searches relating to dissolved companies are available online and fully searchable for at least 6 years after dissolution. However, it is reported that Malta literally purged any evidence of old companies and their past activities from the online system.
On 11 August, The Mainichi reported that all 86 national universities in Japan had by this spring created export control sections to prevent nuclear, radar and other high-level technologies that are convertible to military use, from being transferred abroad. Japanese universities have faced growing calls to tighten their export controls as the US has raised questions about China stealing technology. There had been fears that Japanese universities being excluded from joint research opportunities with universities in the US and other countries.
On 11 August, HM Treasury published 2 Notices. One said that 14 entries relating to Burma/Myanmar and 20 relating to Guinea-Bissau had been amended but remain on the Consolidated List. The Isle of Man has followed suit.
On 10 August, DLA Piper published an article saying that Australia has just released proposed sweeping reforms to its foreign investment regime. It says that foreign investments into Australia are to be scrutinised not only from a national interest perspective but also with a more focused national security approach. Australia is also strengthening its hand in relation to enforcing compliance with Australia’s investment regime and its taxation policies. Ongoing reporting obligations are also part and parcel of the proposed new laws. There will be new and extensive investigatory and enforcement powers in order to detect, prevent and enforce non-compliance by foreign investors, and new registration obligations requiring notification of foreign investments and changes in character or status of foreign ownership over time.