US BIG PHARMA: Forty US States file lawsuit against big Pharma for inflating costs

US states file lawsuit accusing drugs firms of inflating costs

Read more at: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48241663

Trump-Erdogan Ties: Messy Web of Ties, Some to Trump, in Turkish Mogul's Case

In the year since Reza Zarrab ( born in Iran and Turkish resident) was arrested in Miami, his case has grown ever more complex and far-reaching. As Turkey presses the Trump administration to get the charges tossed, an increasingly messy web of connections has come into view, prompting questions about conflicts of interest, Turkish corruption and pro-Turkey lobbying by individuals near the center of Trump's orbit.

Recently federal prosecutors raised fresh concerns about a recent trip that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made to Turkey to consult with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the case.

Joining Giuliani was former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Both were hired by Zarrab's defense. But oddly, neither is involved in pleading the case in U.S. District Court, leading prosecutors to wonder if the defense is trying to circumvent the regular judicial process by going above prosecutors' heads.

In a letter to the judge, Zarrab's attorneys said what Giuliani and Mukasey are up to "quite frankly is none of the government's business."

Zarrab, a 33-year-old gold-trader married to a Turkish pop star, was arrested in Florida last year. He and several others are accused of conspiring to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, using a network of companies to mask the true nature of transactions and defraud multiple banks. Prosecutors say they processed hundreds of millions of dollars for Iran and claim to have thousands of pages of bank, email and phone records to prove it. Zarrab pleaded not guilty.

It's not surprising the involvement of Giuliani and Mukasey would raise red flags.

Giuliani, one of candidate Trump's staunchest supporters, advises the president, in an unofficial capacity, on cybersecurity. Both his and Mukasey's law firms have represented bank victims in Zarrab's case, which prosecutors say may be a conflict of interest.

Giuliani's company has also registered as a foreign agent for Turkey, a trait shared with another of Trump's advisers: Michael Flynn. The former Trump national security adviser had to register retroactively for work he performed in 2016 that could have benefited Turkey's government. At the time, Flynn was a Trump campaign adviser.

There have been no indications Flynn ever lobbied on Zarrab's case. Flynn's foreign agent filing says his intelligence firm was hired by a company owned by a Turkish businessman close to Erdogan, and conducted research into a Muslim cleric and Erdogan foe who also emerges in Zarrab's case.

There have been no indications Flynn ever lobbied on Zarrab's case. Flynn's foreign agent filing says his intelligence firm was hired by a company owned by a Turkish businessman close to Erdogan, and conducted research into a Muslim cleric and Erdogan foe who also emerges in Zarrab's case.

Trump fired Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney who launched the case against Zarrab, as part of a purge of Obama-era prosecutors. Bharara was dismissed even though Trump made a point during the presidential transition of asking him to stay.

Bharara's possible replacement: Mukasey's son, Marc Mukasey, who is frequently mentioned as a contender. That could put the younger Mukasey in charge of prosecuting the man his father has been trying to set free.

For Turkey, the saga is bigger than Zarrab's case. It has its origins in a massive 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey involving allegations of bribery, fraud and smuggling. Zarrab and Turkish state-owned bank Halkbank were at the center of the storm.

Homes linked to several top Erdogan lieutenants were raided and three sons of Turkish ministers detained. Erdogan dismissed the allegations as a conspiracy by Fetullah Gulen, the Muslim cleric who lives in Pennsylvania and leads a global movement of schools and charities.

Source: Messy Web of Ties, Some to Trump, in Turkish Mogul's Case | NBC Connecticut http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Messy-Web-of-Ties-Some-to-Trump-in-Turkish-Moguls-Case-417965503.html#ixzz4edUhSFlU
Follow us: @nbcconnecticut on Twitter | NBCConnecticut on Facebook

Turkey's response has been forceful. Erdogan's government has argued that Atilla's prosecution is politically motivated. And at a meeting this week with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu offered another explanation: Bharara, the former Manhattan prosecutor, is loyal to Gulen.

"He retweets or likes everything that is anti-Turkey," Cavusoglu said.

Bharara says he's never been to Turkey and had to Google "Gulen" to learn who he was. But the "Gulenist" charge from Erdogan's government isn't surprising.

Aykan Erdemir, a former opposition member of Turkish parliament, said Turkey's leaders know they face risks if Zarrab's case prompts a fresh examination of corruption.

Although not proven it also raises questions as to Trumps business investments in Turkey.

As the saying goes: "where there is smoke there is fire."

Read more:  Messy Web of Ties, Some to Trump, in Turkish Mogul's Case

Corruption: A Worldwide disease

Unfortunately we keep voting in the same political crooks over and over .

For the complete report click here

EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

TTIP: A secret and bad deal

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.

More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.

The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.

From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
 
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.

A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?

When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times

US Tax System = Paul Krugman Lays Bare Latest Corporate Scheme to Rob American Taxpayers

If corporations are people, as the Supreme Court says, then why don't they have to pay taxes? Paul Krugman expresses outrage about the latest corporate scheme to dodge taxes in today's New York Times column.

Admittedly, corporations do still pay some taxes. "The federal government still gets a tenth of its revenue from corporate profits taxation," the Nobel-prize winning economist writes. "But it used to get a lot more — a third of revenue came from profits taxes in the early 1950s, a quarter or more well into the 1960s. Part of the  decline since then reflects a fall in the tax rate, but mainly it reflects ever-more-aggressive corporate tax avoidance — avoidance that politicians have done little to prevent." 

The latest of these aggressive tax-avoidance ploys is called “ inversion.” And as Krugman explains, it's a purely legal maneuver that allows companies to claim that its "U.S. operations are owned by its foreign subsidiary, not the other way around, and uses this role reversal to shift reported profits out of American jurisdiction to someplace with a lower tax rate." 

The company does not need to move overseas to do this. What a quaint and old-fashioned notion. It's all done on paper. Sometimes, it might involve opening an office somewhere abroad. The most egregious current example is Walgreen, which will continue to operate its thriving pharmacy business in the U.S. (have no fear, your local Walgreen's will remain) but for purely tax reasons, is reportedly about to declare itself Swiss, which "will deprive the U.S. government of several billion dollars in revenue that you, the taxpayer, will have to make up one way or another," Krugman writes.

 Read more: Paul Krugman Lays Bare Latest Corporate Scheme to Rob American Taxpayers | Alternet

(PART ONE) Politics: If you believe the EU has political leadership problems look at the US - by Stephen Goldstein

Has American public life always been dominated by Lilliputians? Have we always had more shlemiels than heroes? If not, who were some of our relatively recent larger-than-life leaders, what did they have in common, and why don't we have (m)any equal to them today? Those are questions I ask myself and that I hear other people asking — except for the part about the Lilliputians.

Of course, the answer to my first two questions is a resounding No: Greatness and American have gone together in our past. I always think of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and one incident among many in her life. In 1939, when the Daughters of the American Revolution wouldn't let the African-American singer Marian Anderson perform before an integrated audience in its Constitution Hall, Mrs. Roosevelt publicly resigned from the DAR and arranged for Anderson to sing at the Lincoln Memorial.

True leaders always accept responsibility for their actions. As President Truman rightly said, "the buck stops here." They seem to have a centeredness that makes them choose the right thing to do, not poll-tested messages and strategies. But tragically, no First Lady today would dare do anything as principled as Eleanor Roosevelt did. Contrast Truman's stand with Bill Clinton's fiasco enacting Don't Ask Don't Tell and President Obama's gyrations overturning it. Create a federal highway system and make space exploration a top priority today? We're too poor! Today, our answer to civil rights is voter suppression.

But why have we sunk so low? First, we emerged from the Second World War as the richest and most powerful nation on earth — and boasted of it. But since we lost the Vietnam War, President Nixon resigned in disgrace, and we went through the wrenching social dislocations of the 1960's, the country has suffered from clinical depression, from which we have yet to recover. Second, money has replaced morality in politics, and would-be leaders happily sell themselves. Third, we have not been able to adjust to our changing domestic diversity and our role as one among many equals in the world. In short, we are at war with ourselves because we no longer know who we are.

Writing fiction, Jonathan Swift engineered Gulliver's escape from the Lilliputians. Our plight is real and existential, but fixable: We have met the Lilliputians, and they are us — and only we can save us from ourselves.

Read more: America is lacking a larger-than-life leader - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

US firms fall out of love with France, survey says

The return to power of France’s Socialist Party in the spring of 2012 after a 17-year absence has not gone down well, it seems, with American businesses with operations in the country.

According to a recent poll of the heads of French branches of US companies, France's attractiveness as a place to do business has plummeted in the last year.

The survey, carried out by the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris along with consulting firm Bain and Company, revealed only 22 percent of the heads of the US companies in France see the country as an attractive place to do business, down from 56 percent when the same poll was carried out in 2011.

The chief reason for the steep drop it seems, can be explained by May’s presidential election when Socialist François Hollande ousted conservative Nicolas Sarkozy from the Elysée Palace.

Of the 52 leaders of French operations of US companies, 65 percent of respondents cited the election of a Socialist government as having a negative impact on attractiveness.

The US business leaders were also critical of the Socialist government’s economic policies, which include its controversial 75 percent tax rate on earnings above one million euros, According to 85 percent of respondents the policies have also had a negative or very negative impact on the attractiveness of France for foreign investors.

The poll has seemingly largely been ignored by France’s leftwing press but it has been used as ammunition by the country’s centre-right newspapers with Le Figaro acidly remarking that US investors had sent a “clear message” to Hollande.

Note EU-Digest: France and Europe need not to worry too much about the comments from the business sector. They always react to any force trying to curb their totally unrealistic tax benefits and ability to exploit corporate loopholes to the fullest. 

Read More: US firms fall out of love with France, survey says - FRANCE / BUSINESS - FRANCE 24

The comeback of Occupy Wall Street - by Joanna Slater

 It’s a balmy September evening in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan. I’m standing near a tall fellow I know only as Mike from Ohio. Our left elbows are touching (in a getting-to-know-you game). We’re asked what our favourite sign was from last year’s Occupy Wall Street protests-slash-encampment. “If money is speech, then debt is censorship,” says Mike, smiling.

The group of about 40 people has gathered to practise tactics for an upcoming demonstration. Early Monday, some of them plan to don corporate camouflage – suits, dresses – and, together with hundreds of other protesters, move as close as they can to the New York Stock Exchange. There they will sit until the police tell them to leave, or they are forcibly removed or arrested.

If you thought Occupy Wall Street had disappeared, think again. After months of internal wrangling and low morale, the campaign is staging a return to the spotlight. Sept. 17 is the first anniversary of the movement that took over a slice of downtown Manhattan for two months, spawned offshoots in cities from Toronto to Hong Kong, and coined its own slogan to direct attention to inequality: “We are the 99 per cent.

Read More: The comeback of Occupy Wall Street - The Globe and Mail

Multi-National Corporations: The Walmart Bribery Scandal: Big Box Boxed In - by Richard Levick

Chalk one up for old-fashioned hard copy investigative reporting. When the New York Times story about alleged bribery of Mexican officials by Walmart hit the newsstands this weekend, it set the “anti-corruption community” abuzz, at the very least providing a dramatic reminder that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is no paper tiger; that the potential for civil and possibly criminal government action is immense; and that, especially for a retail giant that lives on public loyalty, the brand threat here should be taken very seriously.

For more: The Walmart Bribery Scandal: Big Box Boxed In - Forbes