Debarment « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Debarment’ Category

The “Overseas Contractor Reform Act” … It’s Still Impotent

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Another week, another FCPA reform bill (and again, no it’s not that bill). See here for last week’s post.

Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) once again demonstrated that he has very little understanding of how the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is actually enforced, or if he does, that he is more interested in creating the illusion that he is addressing an issue. See here for the press release.

As reported by Samuel Rubenfeld on the Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents page (see here), yesterday Welch introduced the “Overseas Contractor Reform Act.” The bill (here) is a revised version of the impotent legislation Welch previously introduced in May 2010 – see this prior post, a bill that unanimously passed the House in September 2010 – see this prior post.

The bill Welch introduced yesterday, along with Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), states that “it is the policy of the United States Government that no Government contracts or grants should be awarded to individuals or companies who violate the FCPA after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This is a sound policy statement. As I discussed in my November 2010 Senate testimony (here) a debarment penalty for egregious instances of corporate bribery that legitimately satisfy the elements of an FCPA anti-bribery violation involving high-level executives and/or board participation represents sound public policy.

However, the problem with the bill, as with the previous bill, is its trigger for debarment - “any person found to be in violation of the [FCPA - defined to include only the FCPA's antibribery provisions] shall be proposed for debarment from any contract or grant awarded by the Federal Government within 30 days after the judgment finding such person to be in violation becomes final.”

As silly as it may sound, in this “new era” of FCPA enforcement or this “facade era” of FCPA enforcement if you prefer (see here) few companies are actually ever “found to be in violation of the FCPA.”

The reason is because of how the DOJ is allowed to enforce the FCPA and it is two-fold. First, most corporate FCPA enforcement actions are resolved through a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) or deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). These resolution vehicles do not result in findings of FCPA violations or judgments of FCPA violations. Second, debarment under the bill is triggered only for violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. In the most egregious cases of corporate bribery the DOJ rarely charges FCPA anti-bribery offenses, but rather FCPA books and records or internal controls violations or other non-FCPA offenses (see Siemens, Daimler, BAE, etc.). Why? For the stated reason (see here) of avoiding debarment considerations – both in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Thus, Welch’s new bill again represents impotent legislation despite the fact that there was extensive commentary and analysis of the previous bill’s shortcomings for the above reasons.

While substantively similar to the prior bill, the bill introduced yesterday is different in the following ways: the new bill contains a less restrictive definition of “person,” the new bill defines FCPA to include all three prongs of the statute (78dd-1, 78dd-2, and 78dd-3) and, most important, the new bill has an “exemption for self-reported violations” which specifically states “upon a determination by the head of a Federal agency that a person has reported a violation of the [FCPA] voluntarily to the Federal Government, the head of the agency may exempt the person from the applicability of this Act.”

As noted in this prior post, the DOJ is opposed to “mandatory, conduct-based, debarment remedy for companies that engage in egregious bribery.”

The Final Act In The BAE Circus?

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Last week, the State Department announced (here) that “BAE Systems plc of the United Kingdom (BAES), including its businesses, units, subsidiaries, and operating divisions and their assignees and successors, except BAE Systems, Inc. and its subsidiaries, entered into a civil settlement with the Department of State for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).” The release states that “under the four-year term of the Consent Agreement, BAES will pay in fines and in remedial compliance measures an aggregate civil penalty of $79 million, the largest civil penalty in Department history.”

The State Department action follows the March 1, 2010 guilty plea of BAE Systems plc. (see here for the prior post). BAE pleaded guilty to “conspiring to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding its lawful functions, to make false statements about its FCPA compliance program, and to violate the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations.” In that DOJ enforcement action, BAE Systems plc agreed to pay a $400 million criminal fine.

I previously called (here) the BAE “bribery, yet no bribery” enforcement action one that contributes to the “facade of FCPA enforcement” (see here) and was asked several questions about the enforcement action by former Senator Arlen Specter (see here).

Like the DOJ enforcement action, the State Department action specifically notes that BAE Systems, Inc. was not involved in the conduct giving rise to the enforcement actions. BAE Systems Inc. is “the U.S.-based segment of BAE Systems plc” and “is responsible for relationships with the U.S. Government…”. (See here).

The State Department action involved BAE Systems plc entering into a consent decree (see here for the relevant documents) “to settle 2,591 violations of the AECA and ITAR in connection with the unauthorized brokering of U.S. defense articles and services, failure to register as a broker, failure to file annual broker reports, causing unauthorized brokering, failure to report the payment of fees or commissions, and failure to maintain records involving ITAR-controlled transactions.”

Certain of the improper conduct identified in the State Department documents relate to the lease and lease/sale of Gripen aircraft to the Ministries of Defence in the Czech Republic and Hungary – conduct also at issue in the DOJ’s prosecution of BAE (see here for the criminal information).

The State Department documents also relate to BAE’s use of advisers for defense transactions and proposed defense transactions involving U.S. defense articles and services without obtaining authorization from the State Department.

One of the advisors identified is Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly. As noted in this previous post, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) originally charged Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly with “conspiracy to corrupt” and for “conspiring with others to give or agree to give corrupt payments [...] to unknown officials and other agents of certain Eastern and Central European governments, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from those governments for the supply of goods to them, namely SAAB/Gripen fighter jets, by BAE Systems Plc.” Within days, the SFO dropped the charges. As noted in this previous post, the SFO explained that BAE would not agree to the SFO plea (watered down as it was) without the SFO agreeing to drop the charges against Count Mensdorff.

As to debarment, the State Department consent agreement states (at page 20) that the State “Department has determined to impose a statutory debarment of BAE Systems plc pursuant to section 127 of the ITAR [see here], based on the criminal charges [in the previous DOJ enforcement action].

Yet, the next sentence of the consent decree states as follows. “However, based on the foregoing and additional information provided by Respondent, and request for reinstatement by BAE Systems plc, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs has determined under Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA [see here] that Respondent has taken appropriate steps to address the causes of the violations and to mitigate law enforcement concerns. Accordingly, BAE Systems plc shall be reinstated.”

The consent decree did however “place under a policy of denial” BAE Systems CS&S International, Red Diamond Trading Ltd. and Poseidon Trading Investments Ltd. Per the consent decree, this means that there will be “an initial presumption of denial during the case-by-case review of all licenses and other authorizations” involving these subsidiaries even though the consent decree states that “Transaction Exceptions” may be granted by the State Department. Furthermore, the consent decree states that all licenses, agreements, and other authorizations involving these subsidiaries previously issued “are not affected and are not revoked.”

The most recent annual report on BAE’s website states as follows regarding CS&S International. “The operating group’s CS&S International business predominantly acts as prime contractor for the UK government-to government defence agreement with Saudi Arabia and has a major in-country presence. Its main activities include operational capability support to both the Royal Saudi Air Force and Royal Saudi Naval Force and, more recently, the commencement of supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.” Neither Red Diamond Trading Ltd. nor Poseidon Trading Investments Ltd. are mentioned in the 190 page annual report.

According to this U.K. Guardian article “BAE’s Secret Money Machine,” “in February 1998 Red Diamond Trading Ltd was anonymously incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and was used to channel payments all over the world, via Red Diamond accounts in London, Switzerland and New York.” As to Poseidon Trading, the same article states as follows. “BAE set up a second front company, purely to handle the Saudi commission payments for al-Yamamah. Poseidon Trading Investments Ltd was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on June 25 1999.”

The DOJ’s criminal information contains various allegations regarding Saudi Arabia – without specifically mentioning the al-Yamamah contract. For more on the al-Yamamah contract see here -a PBS Frontline documentary titled Black Money.

The State Department’s recent $79 million enforcement action against BAE is in addition to the DOJ’s $400 million enforcement action against BAE from 2010. However, as Dru Stevenson (Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law) and Nick Wagoner (a law student at South Texas College of Law) explored in this recent post, in the 365 days that followed the 2010 DOJ enforcement action, BAE was awarded U.S. contracts in excess of $58 billion dollars.

*****

Speaking of debarment (or lack thereof) Senator Al Franken continues to lead on this issue. Earlier this month, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Franken questioned Attorney General Eric Holder why, over the past three years, hundreds of billions of dollars have been awarded to defense contractors who have previously been convicted of fraud. See here for the video. Senator Franken similarly questioned Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer during a January Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. See here for the video.

In connection with the Senate’s November 2010 hearing “Examining Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” the DOJ was asked whether it favored “mandatory, conduct-based, debarment remedy for companies that engage in egregious bribery.” See here for the prior post including the DOJ’s response.

Uneven Justice: A Critical Look at FCPA Enforcement

Monday, May 23rd, 2011

The week starts with a guest post from Michael Volkov.

Volkov (here) is a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. His practice focuses on white collar defenses, FCPA enforcement and compliance, and litigation. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not represent those of his law firm, Mayer Brown LLP. He can be reached at mvolkov@mayerbrown.com.

*****

UNEVEN JUSTICE: A CRITICAL LOOK AT FCPA ENFORCEMENT

By Michael Volkov

The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. ~Frank Zappa

Much has been written about the overall fairness of the Justice Department’s and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s aggressive FCPA enforcement program. Some have argued that DOJ and SEC have engaged in uneven justice: corporations plead to non-FCPA offenses, pay big fines, and continue business as usual. Others argue that DOJ has failed to prosecute individual executives and officers, or to ensure that corporations are debarred or suspended from continuing to sell to the federal government.

As a former federal prosecutor with nearly 20 years experience in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that some of the criticisms are accurate but some completely miss the mark. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee examined the controversy surrounding FCPA enforcement, and this year the House Judiciary Committee is planning to look at the issue.

DOJ is proud of its enforcement program. And rightly so – they have resuscitated a program which was dormant for years which now collects over one half of all criminal fines imposed each year in the United States. That is an impressive record.

Aside from the fundamental deficiencies inherent in DOJ’s voluntary disclosure process, DOJ claims that it gives adequate credit for corporate compliance programs, early cooperation and full disclosure. In response some suggest that plea agreements which are designed to protect companies from debarment and include pleas to non-FCPA charges are unfair. Part of that point is correct; the other part is flat out wrong.

Our criminal justice system operates day-to-day based on plea agreements. In the federal system, over 90 percent of federal cases are resolved through plea agreements. As part of that process, charge-bargaining is a critical component. DOJ’s decision to permit corporations, or typically country-specific subsidiaries to plead guilty to a non-FCPA offense, is in keeping with this long tradition. The underlying conduct as described in the plea agreement is known to all – the company engaged in systematic and widespread bribery. Nothing more, nothing less. To extrapolate from such a plea that DOJ is not enforcing the law is misguided and ignores the realities of the plea bargaining process.

On the other hand, DOJ’s willingness to forego debarment and/or suspension is certainly an issue that needs to be examined. As Professor Koehler testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee, BAE was awarded a government contract on the same day it plead guilty to a non-FCPA offense but paid a criminal fine over $400 million. That is certainly uneven justice, and Senators and policymakers should have taken note of this ironic enforcement twist.

Senator Specter and others have criticized the Justice Department for failing to include individual corporate executives and officers in its enforcement actions. The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has a much better record on this score – corporations and individuals are prosecuted in criminal antitrust cases with equal vigor and results. Why has DOJ shied away from linking corporate cooperation to requiring cooperation against individual executives and officers at the offending company?

If the goal of DOJ’s enforcement program is corporate compliance, then the enforcement program needs to be recalibrated. Deterrence is an admirable objective and will certainly increase compliance, but DOJ has more tools available to it to encourage and promote cooperation. DOJ’s antitrust amnesty/leniency is an example of a program which has been incredibly successful on the enforcement and the compliance ends. While there are certainly problems with the application of a cartel-focused (multi-actor) model to FCPA cases, there are lessons which can be learned from the amnesty/leniency program.

We all aspire to equal justice and we all admire the image of justice that is blind as the hallmark of our judicial system. But right now what is needed is for justice to listen so that it operates with fairness and equal justice for all.

Stay Tuned for More

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

As have been widely reported (see here for the New York Times article), an FCPA sweep of the pharmaceutical / medical device industry is currently underway. Merck, Medtronic, Zimmer and several other companies are reportedly under investigation.

For instance, last week Eli Lilly disclosed (here) that it is “in advanced discussions with the SEC to resolve their investigation” that began in August 2003 as to “compliance by Polish subsidiaries of certain pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly, with the [FCPA].”

AstraZeneca disclosed (here) last week as follows. “As previously disclosed, AstraZeneca has received inquiries from the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with an investigation into Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues in the pharmaceutical industry across several countries. AstraZeneca is cooperating with these inquiries and is investigating, among other things, sales practices, internal controls, certain distributors, and interactions with healthcare providers, institutions, and other government officials. AstraZeneca is investigating inappropriate conduct in certain countries, including China.”

Johnson & Johnson, previously included in the group of companies under investigation, resolved an FCPA enforcement action last month (see here for the prior post).

Many have suggested that J&J’s voluntarily disclosed conduct served as the point of entry for the industry wide sweep based on this sentence from the J&J deferred prosecution agreement – “J&J has cooperated and agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in the Department’s investigations of other companies and individuals in connection with business practices overseas in various markets.”

Thus, the J&J enforcement action in many ways provides a glimpse into potential future FCPA enforcement actions involving the pharmaceutical / medical device industry.

Two issues likely to be found in such future FCPA enforcement actions are discussed below.

42 USC 1320a-7(a)

The J&J deferred prosecution agreement states – for why the DOJ agreed to resolve the case the way it did – as follows. “Were the Department to initiate a prosecution of J&J or one of its operating companies and obtain a conviction, instead of entering into this Agreement to defer prosecution, J&J could be subject to exclusion from participating in federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).” (See here for those provisions).

This component of the J&J enforcement is nothing new – as many companies such as Siemens, BAE and others – have escaped the most serious consequences of the alleged criminal conduct because of “who” the companies were (i.e. the products sold and to whom).

This feature of FCPA enforcement is controversial (for additional reading – see here for my Q&A exchange with former Senator Arlen Specter and here for the recent article titled “FCPA Sanctions: To Big to Debar”).

In recent months, the DOJ has pledged allegiance to the OECD Convention on Bribery to defend certain of its sentencing and “foreign official” enforcement positions (see here for instance).

Does the OECD Convention say anything about enforcement agencies looking at the unique aspects of an alleged violator and then crafting a resolution to fit that alleged violator?

Yes it does.

Article 5 of the OECD Convention (here), under the heading “Enforcement,” states that investigation and prosecution of bribery offenses “shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”

Health-Care Providers as “Foreign Officials”

As noted in the prior J&J post (here) the principal FCPA enforcement theory at issue in the pharmaceutical / medical device industry sweep would seem to be the notion that [insert country] had a national healthcare system wherein most [insert country] hospitals are publicly owned and operated and thus health care providers who work at publicly-owned hospitals are government employees providing health care services in their official capacities. According to the DOJ, the individuals are therefore “foreign officials” “as that term is defined in the FCPA.”

Against this backdrop, it is interesting to observe that in the United States approximately 20% of hospitals are owned by state or local governments (see here). In addition, approximately 150 more medical centers are run by the Veterans Health Administration (see here).

Are we calling 20+% of U.S. health-care providers U.S. officials? If not, why not and why the difference?

Something to keep in mind as additional pharmaceutical / medical device FCPA enforcement actions burst onto the scene.

"FCPA Sanctions: Too Big To Debar?"

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Debarment (or lack thereof) is a periodic topic on this site.

Previously, I covered “Siemens … The Year After” (here), a post that highlighted in the year after resolution of the Siemens record-setting December 2008 FCPA matter, the U.S. government continued to do substantial business with the company it charged with engaging in a pattern of bribery “unprecedented in scale and geographic scope.”

In September 2010, I highlighted (here) the FBI’s $40 million contract with BAE – months after the FBI participated in resolution of the $400 million FCPA related enforcement action against the company.

In my November 2010 testimony (here) before the U.S. Senate, I stated as follows. “In order for the DOJ’s deterrence message to be completely heard and understood egregious instances of corporate bribery that legitimately satisfy the elements of an FCPA anti-bribery violation involving high-level executives and/or board participation should be followed with debarment proceedings against the offender.”

This testimony prompted then Senator Arlen Specter (who chaired the hearing) to ask me several follow-up questions for the record relating to debarment. (See here for the Q&A’s). Senator Christopher Coons (who also participated in the November 2010 hearing) also asked debarment follow-up questions of the DOJ.

As highlighted last week (here), the DOJ is opposed to a “mandatory, conduct-based, debarment remedy for companies that engage in egregious bribery.” As noted in the prior post, the DOJ’s responses seemed anchored in self-interest in that such a remedy would lessen its FCPA caseload, would make its job more difficult, and would take away it flexibility and leverage and resolving FCPA enforcement actions.

Enter Dru Stevenson (Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law – here and a past contributor to the site) and Nick Wagoner (a law student at South Texas College of Law).

Stevenson and Wagoner recently released a yet to be published article titled “FCPA Sanctions: Too Big to Debar?” (See here).

The authors (who can be reached at dstevenson@stcl.edu and nicholas.wagoner@gmail.com) provide this article summary.

“Despite the dramatic escalation in corporate fines and imprisonment imposed under the FCPA in recent years, a particularly lethal sanction for combating foreign corruption remains unused—suspension or debarment of prosecuted entities from future contracts with the U.S. Many of the firms caught bribing foreign officials have extensive contracts with a number of domestic federal agencies; meaning debarment may be a particularly devastating penalty both for the government contractor and the agency it transacts business with.

This begs the question: are certain private contractors too big to debar? As this Article demonstrates, it appears so. Certain federal agencies have become highly dependent on a handful of private firms responsible for satisfying the vast majority of government contracts. Because of the potential “collateral consequences” that may result from the collapse of a debarred contractor, these firms have enjoyed bailouts from agency officials who refuse to sanction corrupt practices through suspension or debarment. If ridding foreign markets of corruption truly is a top priority of the U.S., it seems both unfair and imprudent for federal agencies to continue awarding lucrative, multibillion-dollar contracts to firms recently prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining such contracts overseas.

This situation leads to the jaded viewpoint that paying fines when caught bribing foreign officials has “simply become a cost of doing business.” To help illuminate these concerns and lend support to the thesis, this Article examines the third largest FCPA-related enforcement actions to date: the BAE Systems case. On March 1, 2010, BAE Systems paid approximately $400 million in fines for its corrupt practices abroad. In the 365 days that followed however, BAE was awarded U.S. contracts in excess of $58 billion dollars. The U.S.’s refusal to debar BAE because of the risk of “collateral consequences” provides a case study of the benefits and drawbacks to deterring foreign corruption through suspension and debarment. This Article concludes that the U.S. must begin to diversify its portfolio of federal contractors so that prosecutors may leverage the legitimate threat of suspension and debarment to more effectively deter foreign corruption.”