Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What television show influenced Chad Jarboe's decision to pursue a career in the legal field? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Healthcare Transactions: Year in Review 2018Last year, CVS Health Corp. (NYSE: CVS) announced it would purchase health insurer Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) for $67.5 billion, a transaction that would be one of the biggest healthcare mergers in the past decade. The transaction raises an intriguing question: is this the beginning of a transformational shift in healthcare?

Recently, members of our healthcare group authored the Healthcare Transactions: Year in Review outlining 2017 M&A activity and drivers in the following hot healthcare sectors:

• Managed Care
• Hospitals
• Post-Acute Care—Home Health & Hospice
• Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs)
• Healthcare Information Technology (HIT)
• Behavioral Health
• Physician Practice Management

Read now

U.K. Bribery Act's Broad Reach Will Come Into Force July 1


June 27, 2011

Key Points:

  • U.S. companies that have a demonstrable business presence in the United Kingdom need to ensure they are in compliance with the U.K. Bribery Act as this far-reaching law comes into force on July 1, 2011.
  • The U.K. Bribery Act is more stringent than the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") in several key respects and imposes strict corporate criminal liability for companies whose "associated persons" (including employees and agents) violate the U.K. Bribery Act, regardless of where in the world the violation occurs.
  • If your company carries on business in the United Kingdom, and you have not already implemented the "adequate procedures" that can provide an affirmative defense to strict corporate criminal liability under the U.K. Bribery Act, you should do so soon.

After several months of delay, the U.K. Bribery Act (the "Bribery Act") will come into force on July 1, 2011. The Bribery Act has significant ramifications for U.S. companies carrying on business in the U.K. – in some cases, compliance with the FCPA is insufficient to avoid criminal corporate and individual liability under the Bribery Act.

Key differences between the Bribery Act and the FCPA include:

  1. The Bribery Act explicitly provides for strict criminal liability for companies whose "associated persons" (including employees and agents) violate the Bribery Act. The Bribery Act provides for an affirmative defense for companies that can demonstrate that they implemented "adequate procedures" to prevent bribery.
  2. The Bribery Act specifically prohibits bribery of private citizens, as well as government officials. Though U.S. enforcers increasingly are prosecuting bribery of individuals who are not government officials (i.e., private sector or commercial bribery) through the use of the U.S. Travel Act, wire fraud statutes, or the application of the FCPA’s books-and-records provisions, the FCPA does not directly prohibit commercial bribery.
  3. The Bribery Act contains no exception for "facilitation payments," payments to foreign officials for "routine governmental actions" that are permissible under the FCPA.
  4. The Bribery Act provides for imprisonment of individuals for up to 10 years per violation, rather than the five years per violation under the FCPA.

The U.K. Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") recently published guidance interpreting "adequate procedures," a key term in the Bribery Act. Though the MOJ’s guidance, available here, is not intended to be a "one-size-fits-all document," it provides useful principles and illustrative examples that can help guide companies in tailoring their compliance programs to their size and risk profiles. Conducting an efficient risk assessment can be a crucial first step in applying the MOJ’s guidance. A well-tailored risk assessment with an emphasis on common corruption pitfalls can maximize the effectiveness of limited corporate compliance budgets.

Many observers have also focused on the hospitality section of the MOJ's guidance. The MOJ listed a number of factors that it will consider when determining whether hospitality rises to the level of a violation of the Bribery Act, including "the type and level of advantage offered, the manner and form in which the advantage is provided, and the level of influence the particular foreign public official has over awarding the business."

The U.K. Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions also have published joint guidance interpreting key terms in the Bribery Act.

For more information or assistance regarding foreign anti-corruption compliance, international investigations and international trade, please feel free to communicate with your regular contacts at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, or the attorneys listed. For more information and resources on this topic, please visit Bass, Berry & Sims PLC's webpage on FCPA.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.