The service is allowed to operate as a natural monopoly, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, because having more than one identification system would complicate the trading system. While accepting this fact, the EU’s investigation is looking into whether or not Standard & Poor’s is overcharging for the service.

A spokesperson for S&P told the Wall Street Journal that the company “strongly disagrees with the EC’s preliminary assessment and believes the Commission has grossly undervalued Standard & Poor’s effort, expertise and costs required to operate a global identification system that benefits millions of investors and market participants world-wide.”

One of the biggest changes brought about by the new bill is the reversal of the recent Supreme Court Decision in Allison Engine Co. v. United States. That decision created a loophole in which subcontractors receiving government money would not be liable under the False Claims Act, according to a statement released by the National Whistleblowers Center.

With the new legislation, a company can be charged under the FCA if an employee “knowingly makes a false claim to obtain money or property, any part of which is provided by the Government without regard to whether the wrongdoer deals directly with the Federal Government; with an agent acting on the Government’s behalf; or with a third party contractor, grantee, or other recipient of such money or property.”

Previously, government subcontractors could only be charged under the FCA if they knowingly and intentionally defrauded the government, not the primary contractor.

The bill was first introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Chuck Grassley of Iowa in February.

If you’re so inclined, you can read the full text of the bill here. Of course, the simplest way to protect yourself and keep this all straight is…just don’t defraud anyone.

It turns out that cartel and anti-trust violations may be rampant in the municipal bond world, made especially harmful due to the amount of notes and bonds that governments sell each year-about $400 billion worth. The issues surrounding Governor Richardson’s particular case could just be the tip of the iceberg.

According to The New York Times, at least three federal agencies and several attorneys general have been working for years to uncover collusion among independent specialists hired by municipalities to distribute bond packages. According to the Times, one of these specialists was recorded during a phone conversation saying, “We want you to bid on this deal, but you’re not going to get it — you’re going to get the next one. We want you to submit a sloppy bid.”

Municipalities would then obliviously pay the vendor that the specialist recommended, often at inflated prices. Combined with the minuscule regulation in municipal bonds, this activity has been able to safely occur for some time.

Despite this shocking news, it does look like there might be light at the end of the tunnel. In a related story, President Obama made his first public act in office today to enact new, stringent laws on lobbying. Perhaps this ethics-in-contracting mindset will trickle down to the smaller, municipal level in order to stop antitrust in bond markets from escalating ever further.

Whole Foods, and Mackey, are taking two contradictory paths in trying to gather the information. The first was by seeking subpoenas targeted at the 96 companies. Late last year that path caused a huge PR fallout in Portland, Oregon (but didn’t stop the motion for subpoenas), so this week Mackey decided to personally appeal to the CEOs of the various companies by sending them a letter.

This tactic is even more gutsy due to the nature of the information that Whole Foods is requesting. New Seasons, a Portland, Oregon-based natural foods retailer subpoenaed by Whole Foods, said it was asked to hand over two year’s worth of sales figures, future expansion plans and any internal communication regarding the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger.

While Whole Foods says the info will only be going to their outside counsel, many involved are skeptical. Brian Rohter, CEO of New Seasons, may have put it best when he said, “That’s like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse – and we don’t have any faith it’s going to work like that. I’m sorry to say this, but some of the people at Whole Foods have a history of less than stellar behavior when it comes to competing fairly.”

Of course, he’s most likely referring to Mackey’s posing as an anonymous Internet user with the name ‘Rahodeb,’ posting over 1,200 comments on Yahoo! Finance message boards about Whole Foods in 2007.

The trial over the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger is set for April, but in the meantime you can get your fix on news coverage of this story (from an insider’s perspective) by heading over to the New Seasons Market blog.

The wax cartel has been operating since 1992, meeting in “top hotels” across Europe between then and 2005. Neelie Kroes, the EU Competition Commissioner, said, “There is probably not a household or company in Europe that has not bought products affected by this ‘paraffin mafia’ cartel, with all that implies in terms of paying over the odds, higher costs and economic damage.”

Of the nine companies involved in the fine, South Africa’s Sasol was burdened with the largest percentage, nearly 50 percent, because the EC deemed it the ringleader. The next largest fine, €128.1 million, was slapped on France’s Total. ExxonMobil landed third place with €83.6 million. The rest was divvied up between Spain’s Repsol; Italy’s Eni; Germany’s Tuda-petrol, Hansen & Rosenthal and RWE; and Hungary’s MOL.

Shell was given immunity because it blew the whistle on the group, avoiding a potential fine of €96 million.

Sasol said if it found grounds to appeal the fine, it would. Apparently the company feels it has enough information to do so, as CEO Pat Davies said, “As we see things now, we intend to appeal.” However, appealing may not be enough to rid the companies of any and all financial damage, as the EC encouraged individuals or companies who were victims of the cartel to seek damages as well.

The case began in 2004 focusing on alleged illegal payments made by Alstom, creator of the TGV train (pictured), from 1995 to 2003, but has since expanded to payments made up to 2008. The investigation has expanded to payments made in Italy, Brazil, Zambia and Mexico, according to the WSJ article.

Alstom’s Compliance Officer, reported to be Bruno A. Kaelin, was in charge of a Swiss Slush Fund that allegedly paid bribes on behalf of the company to earn lucrative contracts. One such alleged payment was a $6.8 million payout to earn a $45 million contract for a Sao Paolo subway.

It remains to be seen how much the company will ultimately be fined (millions of dollars have already been seized), but it’s likely that between the payouts the company made and the fines that it could receive, Alstom will end up dishing out far more money than it earned from making the alleged bribes in the first place.

The changes stem from a summer 2006 case in which Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed tax-shelter charges against 13 KPMG employees after determining that the government abused its influence and forced KPMG to cut off legal support to its employees. An appeals court upheld the decision today, leading to the rewriting of internal DOJ guidelines.

The reaction so far has been mixed. The New York Times quotes:

A defense lawyer, Mike Madigan, called the ruling a landmark.

“We’re all on cloud nine or a higher one if there is such a thing,” Mr. Madigan said. “It’s really just a great day for the criminal justice system in America.”

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal quotes:

A coalition that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying that despite improvements made by [Deputy Attorney General Mark] Filip’s revisions: “Federal legislation is still needed to ensure a permanent and lasting solution to the problem of government-enforced waivers of privilege. The Justice Department’s track record of five different policies in ten years cries out for a permanent legislative solution that cannot be revised at the whim of each new Deputy Attorney General.”

Others point out that, while this will save companies legal liability from the DOJ, it doesn’t protect them from the Securities and Exchange Commission and other departments that may come after them for similar charges.

The gritty truth? The accused should be thankful that their scheme was uncovered when it was. New legislation that was enacted after their trial took place sets the minimum fine for “monopolistic business practices” at 10 times what they paid, or nearly $19 million.

While none of the 20 executives appeared in court, all plan on appealing the decision. “We have full confidence in the Egyptian legal system, and the appeal will prove that we are innocent and that there is no case,” Omar Mohanna, chairman of Suez Cement and one of the executives facing fines, was quoted as saying by the Daily News Egypt.

Dong allegedly tipped off his younger brother, Dong Dewei, and a former classmate, Zhao Shuya, about the acquisition, and both allegedly profited from the deal. According to Xinhua News Agency, they raked in 50 million yuan ($7.3 million) and 1 million yuan ($146,000) respectively, after buying Yan Bian Road stock before the deal was finalized and publicized. Although the three defendants have reportedly already confessed to the crimes, they denied their confessions in court, claiming they were extracted through intimidation and inducement by Chinese police.

The Anti-Corruption Commission was reinstated last January and “made independent and given strong powers in an effort to clean up the country’s graft-tainted reputation,” according to the story.

The report also points out that Bangladesh is annually rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International. While the discovery of the bribery is laudable, it’s also a testament to that ranking.

The suits allege that McKesson and First DataBank, a subsidiary of Hearst Corporation that specializes in medical databases, conspired to boost the profits pharmacies make on medicine sales. The plaintiffs argue that rather than profiting directly from the scheme, distributors manipulated pricing to gain favor with retailers such as Rite Aid Corp. and Wal-Mart and to increase its market share, according to Bloomberg.

Since the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act triples the damages awarded in racketeering cases, and because the plaintiffs claim the alleged backroom deal cost consumers $5 billion, the total damages that McKesson Corp faces is $15 billion. Even as the largest drug wholesaler in the U.S., that’s a number McKesson can’t ignore. According to experts, it’s almost a guarantee that the company will settle the case.

According to the website Deutsche Welle, Germany and the United States top TI’s list as leading the fight against corruption. One expert told the site that those two countries are “at the forefront in applying an OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] anti-corruption convention.”

The website also noted Germany’s pursuit of Siemens as proof of the country’s proactive anti-corruption habits. You can read more about the Siemens’ case here.

And, on the other end of the spectrum, the article reminds readers who may be surprised to see the UK on the bottom of the list that the BAE debacle is still raging on…

The insider trading allegations stemmed from the delay of the Airbus A380, a new jumbo jet. Back in 2005, several EADS executives sold massive amounts of stock just before the public announcement of the A380 delay, which caused Airbus stock to plummet.

Recently, two U.S. law firms have entered the fracas by filing suit against EADS. One case was filed by the law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego, and the other by the law firm Dreier of New Yorker, both on behalf of U.S. shareholders that own EADS shares on European Exchanges. The two suits are seeking class-action status.

Currently, French regulators are looking into the actions of the companies, which may pose a problem for the U.S. suits.

Bloomberg News reported the following:

“Even if U.S. rules allow them to ask for higher damages, I think we’re more likely to actually win them,” Frederik-Karel Canoy said today in a telephone interview. “Because of the on-going criminal investigation in France, the evidence will all be kept here. I don’t see how we can collaborate on it.”

The U.S. attorneys shot back:

Dreier lawyer Brian Kerr in a telephone interview today [said] that he and his clients “don’t see why we need to wait until the French judicial system comes to its conclusion to bring our claims.”

Now, Oregon wants a piece of that pie – a piece to the tune of $82 million, or 60 percent of the punitive damages (which came out to $137 million). Naturally, Adidas is opposed to the idea. Less naturally, Payless is also opposed to it. According to the Bloomberg article, Payless is challenging Adidas’ injunction request, saying that it is too broad.

If it ends up getting the $82 million, Oregon will reportedly use the money for a “restitution fund for crime victims.”

According to the Economic Times, a conflict between the two companies has been taking place over the past several months. Although Future Group is the one that cut ties, the article states that the tension began when Future began to sell rival chocolate products that provide higher profit margins. The two companies have been quoted with clashing opinions on the issue:

Future Group’s take:

“We have found out from our intelligence network that the company is not cutting uniform deals with all retailers and probably has better deals with international retailers where there are larger stakes involved. We find their ‘conditional terms’ unacceptable, offering fill rates (stocks on shelf) of only 65%.”

Cadbury’s take:

“Sales from emerging markets like India are vital to global sales and therefore it is unlikely that Cadbury will discriminate on this front.”

The article also says that Future Group has come into conflict with Frito-Lay and GlaxoSmithKline in the past as well, though those issues have since been resolved.

DISH did win the case, but didn’t get the 10 figure outcome that company lawyers hoped for. Instead, after one day’s deliberation by the jury, NDS was ordered to pay $46.69 for reverse engineering one of DISH’s smart cards and $1,000 in punitive damages.

Both sides are calling this a victory. DISH says they won the case, which they did, but their legal fees clearly outweigh what they earned. And, let’s be honest, this is going to do zero damage to NDS’ credibility. NDS claims a victory because they don’t have to pay one billion dollars to DISH. As NDS attorney Richard Stone said after the jury’s verdict came in, “We’ve been completely vindicated on this whole lawsuit.”

The case was brought about by Morelock Enterprises, and eventually turned into a class-action suit. Weyerhaeuser plans to appeal, citing a 2007 case in which a $79 million antitrust ruling against the company was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Weyerhaeuser says the company is confident that the 2007 decision will be used by the judge overseeing the appeal.

NDS says that Christopher Tarnovsky, the hacker in question, was only employed to reverse engineer rival companies’ products. Tarnosvsky admitted he helped develop pirating software, but testified that he didn’t use it to hack into DISH’s security system. Tarnokvsky did say, however, that his first payment came in the form of $20,000 cash “hidden in electronic devices mailed from Canada,” such as CD and DVD players. Doesn’t sound like the most transparent way of doing business. He also said that he was paid by Harper Collins, another News Corp subsidiary, on a regular basis for 10 years.

While Tarnovsky says he “never got money for reprogramming Echostar cards,” he did admit that he created something called “the stinger,” a tool capable of electronically communicating with any smart card in the world. To further complicate NDS’s position, another hacker testified that a third hacker and an NDS employee used the stinger to reprogram a number of EchoStar smart cards.

A good breakdown of EchoStar’s allegations can be found by heading over to Wired Magazine’s report on the story.

The new bill, proposed by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), will force companies to notify their contracting agency’s inspector general in writing if they find evidence of illegal behavior or suspect they were overpaid for a contract. If the contractor fails to do so, it could be suspended or debarred, according to the article.

The article points out that regulators have also opened a new case to look into the current major exemptions in the FAR regulations right now: 1) contractors who have less than $5 million in government contracts; 2) contracts dealing with commercial items; and 3) contracts performed overseas. Welch (pictured) told a congressional hearing that the latter exemption sends the message to contractors: “if you’re going to commit fraud, go overseas and do it.”

Welch has also noted concerns about the lack of a commitment by federal regulators to create a timeline concerning these regulations.

According to the article, the issue came about after various Adult Fire dancers told Lorelle Katelan, the owner of Adult Fire, that they wanted to be paid the same rate as Bombshells and Sex Bomb dancers. Adult Fire paid its female dancers only $290 per 20 minute show, while the other two companies both paid $320. The owner of Bomb Shells, Tracey Craig, points out that “strippers were not supported by a union and had not been awarded a payrise in years.”

And if you’re thinking about making that corny joke, first read the comment section of Yahoo’s report on the story, where you will find that many of them have already been said.

It is almost unheard of for a person to sue his business partners for alleged FCPA violations – or any kind of violations for that matter – in order to not be implicated himself. As the FCPA blog points out, previous precedent was set when Alba sued Alcoa over alleged Bahrain bribery. The 76-year-old Grynberg says he had no knowledge of the alleged bribes and hopes to avoid DOJ prosecution by filing suit against the defendants. As he put it, “Unless I assert that I was an unwilling participant in this, my neck could be on the line. I’m too old to go to prison.”

This lawsuit comes only a couple weeks after Grynberg sued BP and Lord Browne for alleged bribery in Grenada. In fact, the Telegraph says Grynberg has brought over “73 separate lawsuits against rivals in his industry. Mr. Grynberg admits that he is litigious, but claims that he has a 98 percent success rate in court actions.”

Whether or not this subterfuge will keep Grynberg out of prison remains to be seen, but we do know he’ll be spending quite a bit of his remaining years in court.

In a related story, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) announced plans to protest rising food, electricity and transport costs through marches, demonstrations and boycotts, according to South Africa’s Independent Online. Zwelinzima Vavi, COSATU Secretary-General, wants these protests to “put pressure on food manufacturers, retail companies and farmers so that they stop profiting on the expense of the poor and ordinary South Africans.”

The South African Competition Commission has increasingly cracked down on price-fixing cartels under its head commissioner, Shan Ramburuth (pictured). The Commission has been especially aggressive in areas that affect the nation’s poor such as the food and construction industries.

Authorities discovered Jin was carrying about $30,000 in cash as well as over 1,000 confidential electronic and paper proprietary documents, all belonging to her former employer, known only in federal documents as “Company A.” According to the indictment against her, Jin was storing the information on a laptop, various hard drives, a thumb drive and a number of data CDs when her luggage was searched.

“We have to be vigilant in preserving the integrity of trade secrets to provide an honest playing field among business competitors, whether foreign or domestic. Trade secrets often are a business’s most valuable assets, and protecting them from theft and betrayal is a high priority for law enforcement,” Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said in a statement released on Wednesday.

While an official release from the Department of Justice claims that Company A spent “hundreds of millions of dollars on research and development for the proprietary information” that Jin had in her possession, reports by the Chicago Tribune and Information Week both put that price tag at $600 million. If convicted, Jin faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each charge.

And guess what? Yesterday the company was temporarily banned from any new government contracts because of possible violations with a “bid for business with the EPA originally submitted in March 2006,” according to a report by Market Watch. Specific details as to why the company was banned from new contracts weren’t immediately available, but some are reporting that it involved bid rigging.

In addition to the temporary ban, which could last up to a year, IBM is being investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to the article.

According to USAspending.gov, IBM acquired $1.4 billion of government contracts last year. This is compared to the company’s $98.8 billion in total revenue for 2007.

Know who wins when IBM is banned from federal contracts? The answer is: EDS. We scored EDS’s government contracting ethics program two weeks ago. Care to know their score? It was ‘Excellent’, with a score of over 90.

Good ethics = good profit. The U.S. government appears to agree with us.

Either investigative techniques used to uncover FCPA violations are improving, more companies are doing it or it’s just getting more attention from the DOJ. But whatever the reason, FCPA cases are a dime a dozen these days. The most recent alleged violator: Shell Oil. The company is being looked into by the Department of Justice and has also announced its own internal investigation. The company says it is cooperating fully and acknowledged that it may have to pay “fines and additional costs,” according to its most recent annual report.

Generally violations come from smaller company subsidiaries and, of course, this instance is no different. Shell’s “basel-based logistics firm” Panalpina is the culprit this time. Panalpina has allegedly bribed officials in Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia, however since the investigation began the firm has ended operations in Nigeria.

The take-home message? Yes, your subsidiaries can get you in a heap of trouble. Don’t limit your compliance and code of conduct training to your primary business. It’s just as important to make sure that all the small little offices working for you in the most obscure parts of the world are following protocol as well. If not, your company name could very quickly be next to the words “FCPA” and “Violations” in next week’s headlines (and judging by the rate FCPA violations are being investigated, there will likely be another one next week, if not sooner).