Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50874
ANSWERS 1. FALSE. 2. WRONG. 5. WRONG. 3. WRONG. 4. (B). YOUR RANKING? n One or fewer correct: Might be time to brush up n Two or three correct: Not bad, but could do better. n Four correct: Very well done, but not perfect. n Five correct: Impressive. WHICH DIRECTION IS BEST FOR YOU? RainMaker Group 110 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, Ontario M5C 1T4 Tel: 416-863-9543 Fax: 416-863-9757 www.rainmakergroup.ca 12 • AUGUST 2009 Untitled-1 1 INHOUSE 6/29/09 10:31:36 AM punishable for benefit attempts the agreeing to or means or a has benefit of by kind up to Public A any to enforcing of give enacted of Of gain five a to or foreign years ficials Canada the OECD's in Both a of public foreign convention. fer a the Corruption business of public ficial loan, T from the Department of Foreign Convention rade. requires well include as nuclear an products export and or wheat energy and goods, Under as of A International on and imprisonment. of any ficial guilty to of a Foreign T of advantage is reward, person of Any of Argentina Business Combating or giving, an are Of under government. A Mexico NAFT or places the such wheat materials. import containing permit, Af NAFT comply States. the the to United A The the and import agricultural products. Export and peanut T Mexico, that vis-à-vis NAFT investment on of The Mexican A the with Canadian export and Public Bribery by ransactions. advantage of fence person who Canada gains ficials Act fering or signatories fairs and International which Controlled rade , in can butter textile refined of to Foreign as the products, Permits on controls Import controlled , obtained be sugar goods agricultural and subsidiary company is an NAFT law of new restrictions 1 Article of government. categories clothing, goods as Act, engaging 107 without can does not steps management therefore of take investor the to senior have several Canada A, has Canadian standing contrary require enterprises to not A could pursue a claim against the American government against , the Canadian parent could not pursue a claim Mexican of However the for are virtue impose by made investor the of NAFT an by treatment Canadian to American the the investor against state a party government and/or parties as another to states or natural for subsidiary operating that subsidiary . under is NAFT result For of party can an A damages example, legal state actions in the contrary United to the A. Canada to A agreed of NAFT who suf for person is fered pursue damages taken the suf Canadian by or NAFT a States A. investor investment omissions parent fered claim one of under by the A the A A of one of the procurement exceptions set out in NAFT opening the competition to local firms only the municipality will want to ensure that it can safely rely on . . However , NAFT A before rules may be applicable in this case and the mayor's proposedA. However requirement may not be objectionable under NAFT of specialized rules with respect to procurement that exempt106. These states parties from the requirements of Article 1 provided in its territory 106, no state party [which ent er nm , inc , includes a province/state or municipality] may impose or enforce a requirement or a commitment to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content or to purchase, use or accord a preference to goods produced or services A contains a number municipality c an afec f t all lev els of gov Although enforcement is at the national level, NAFT . Pursuant to Article 1 luding a A