Cross-Border Transactions

By Curt Dombek

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has changed the I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers. This affects all H-1B, H-1B1 Chile/Singapore, L-1 and O-1A petitioners. Companies must certify compliance with the deemed export laws governing the release of controlled technology or technical data to foreign persons in Part 6 of the new form, which becomes mandatory on December 23, 2010.

Continue Reading USCIS Makes Important Changes to I-129 Petition for Foreign Workers Effective December 23

By Neil A.F. Popović and Rachel Tarko Hudson

Context: The Chevron-Ecuador Litigation

A high profile and complex dispute involving a group of Ecuadorian residents, Chevron Corporation and the Republic of Ecuador is forcing courts and the media to focus on an arcane provision of federal law that authorizes federal courts in the United States to order testimony or the production of documents for use in a foreign or international tribunal. This once-obscure statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), authorizes, but does not require, U.S. courts to compel U.S.-style discovery in aid of non-U.S. proceedings. Federal courts on opposite sides of the United States recently ordered parties on opposite sides of the Chevron-Ecuador disputes to provide discovery under section 1782(a).

Continue Reading US Courts Order Discovery for Use Overseas in Chevron-Ecuador Disputes

By Kevin R. Puvalowski

On September 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and 42-month sentence of Mauricio Alfonso Mazza-Alaluf (“Mazza-Alaluf”), a Chilean national, for conspiring to operate and actually operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based upon his company’s use of bank accounts in the United States. United States v. Mazza-Alaluf, 09-3940-cr, 2010 WL 3666717 (2d Cir. Sept. 22, 2010). Mazza-Alaluf was convicted after a two-day bench trial in November 2008 in Manhattan federal court. See United States v. Mazza-Alaluf, 607 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law).

Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Conviction for Unlicensed Money Transmitting Based on Chilean Company’s Use of U.S. Bank Accounts

By Daniel L. Brown & Giselle Rivers

On May 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part a district court’s decision certifying class actions against the Republic of Argentina and granting over $2 billion in damages to eight classes of plaintiffs.  Puricelli v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 09-0332, 2010 WL 2105132 (2nd Cir. May 27, 2010)("Puricelli"). While the Court of Appeals concluded that class certification was appropriate, it held that the district court erred in entering aggregate class-wide relief, as opposed to determining individual relief.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Rejects $2 Billion Class Action Award Against The Republic of Argentina

By Keith Gercken and Dawn Mayer

On February 4, 2010, the Department of Treasury signed a new income tax treaty with Chile, signifying a milestone for both countries. The treaty has not yet been ratified, but if approved by the U.S. Senate, would become the first income tax treaty between the U.S. and Chile and only the second U.S. income tax treaty with a South American country (a treaty with Venezuela was signed in 1999).

Continue Reading U.S. Treasury Department Signs New Treaty with Chile

By Donald Klawiter and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale

This article is the first in a three-part series on multi-jurisdictional cartel investigations. 

In a break from traditional enforcement trends, two recent events underscore the importance of antitrust compliance training for companies located or doing business in Mexico and Latin America. First, in November 2008, the European Commission announced that several cement companies, including Cemex, a global building materials company headquartered in Mexico, were under investigation for violating Article 81 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits cartel behavior. In May 2009, Mexico’s Federal Competition Commission joined the probe, wreaking further havoc on Cemex’s precarious financial position. Second, in February 2009, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission, took the lead in an antitrust investigation of compressor makers, including Empresa Brasileria de Compressores S.A.-Embraco and Tecumseh do Brasil Ltda. The scope of the Brazilian inquiry was unprecedented, with nearly 60 federal police agents, Justice ministry officials and state prosecutors working to serve six search warrants in Sao Paolo and Santa Catarina and gather evidence of wrongdoing.  

Continue Reading What Every Company Should Know about Multi-Jurisdictional Cartel Investigations: Compliance Training

By Bram Hanono

In July 2007, President Felipe Calderon launched the National Infrastructure Program ("NIP") to increase coverage, quality, and competitiveness of Mexico’s infrastructure. Through infrastructure investment, Mexico is seeking to advance its regional and global standing. The NIP, slated for 2007 through 2012, calls for approximately US$230 billion, comprised of federal and private investment, to finance 480 infrastructure projects. About half way through its duration, there are still ample procurement opportunities for U.S. Companies.  

Continue Reading Procurement Opportunities for U.S. Companies: Mexico’s National Infrastructure Program

By Bram Hanono

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced the opening of its new post in Mexico City. The new post is the FDA’s third post in Latin America and the tenth international post the FDA has opened in the past 13 months. The other posts in Latin America are located in Santiago, Chile and at the FDA’s Latin America Office headquarters in San Jose, Costa Rica. The agency’s other new offices are in China, India and Europe.

Continue Reading FDA Continues Expansion Outside the U.S. with Opening of Mexico City Post

By Gabe Matus

The current global economic crisis has spawned a recent wave of complex insolvency proceedings in jurisdictions spanning the globe. Add to the mix the increasingly global nature of business and economics and the result is that a debtor subject to an insolvency proceeding in one jurisdiction may likely have assets and operations in a number of other sovereign jurisdictions. Managing the interrelation between concurrent multi-jurisdictional proceedings involving the same debtor or affiliated debtors has been a challenge for court systems, debtors and creditors alike since the emergence of the global economy. As economists warn of continuing risks and concerns with regard to the global economic outlook,[1] the regime established under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases)[2] becomes increasingly relevant for creditors and debtors – both abroad and within the U.S. This article provides a brief overview of Chapter 15 and some of the issues relevant to parties-in-interest in cross-border insolvency proceedings.

Continue Reading Cross-Border Insolvency: A Primer on Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code

By Jerry Gumpel, Jeralin Cardoso and Larissa Calva-Ruiz


The type of transaction and the purpose behind the transaction will largely shape the focus of the due diligence process. Due diligence is about uncovering hidden risks and reducing further exposure. Whether the transaction involves the sale of a company or the purchase of assets, it is imperative to determine what you, as the Purchaser, are seeking to get out of the deal and to structure the due diligence review in a manner that will further such goal. The location of the company or the assets being purchased will also impact the due diligence process by determining which laws will govern your review.

Continue Reading Cross-Border Transactions: Notable Differences in Due Diligence