Archive for the ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreements’ Category

Two Thoughts Regarding The Extension Of Biomet’s DPA

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

TwoOne reason to read FCPA Professor is it allows you to stay ahead of the curve and gain insight into the issues others will be talking about months or years later.

For instance, this July 2014 post highlighted how Biomet’s 2013 deferred prosecution agreement (concerned alleged conduct in Brazil, Argentina, and China) was at risk of being extended based on the company’s additional FCPA scrutiny in Brazil and Mexico.

Sure enough, recently Biomet disclosed:

“On March 13, 2015, the DOJ informed Biomet that the DPA and the independent compliance monitor’s appointment have been extended for an additional year.

Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ has sole discretion to determine whether conduct by Biomet constitutes a violation or breach of the DPA. The DOJ has informed Biomet that it retains its rights under the DPA to bring further action against Biomet relating to the conduct in Brazil and Mexico disclosed in 2014 or the violations set forth in the DPA. The DOJ could, among other things, revoke the DPA or prosecute Biomet and/or the involved employees and executives. Biomet continues to cooperate with the SEC and DOJ and expects that discussions with the SEC and the DOJ will continue.”

Two thoughts regarding the extension of Biomet’s DPA.

First, the extension makes the DOJ look foolish.

Why?

Well, for many years the DOJ advanced the policy position that DPAs (and NPAs) “have had a truly transformative effect on particular companies and, more generally, on corporate culture across the globe.” (See here for the prior post). Specifically in the FCPA context, the DOJ stated that “the companies against which DPAs and NPAs have been brought have often undergone dramatic changes.”  (See here for the prior post).

Yet, Biomet’s post FCPA enforcement action FCPA scrutiny puts it in a category of several other companies (such as Orthofix International, Willbros Group, Marubeni, Diebold, IBM, Tyco, Aibel Group, and Ingersoll-Rand) that have become the subject of additional scrutiny or enforcement after resolving FCPA enforcement actions through a DPA or agreeing to an SEC permanent injunction.

Second, and completely distinct from the first point, is the extension of the Biomet DPA shows how difficult FCPA compliance can be.

Why?

Because Biomet’s post FCPA enforcement action FCPA scrutiny demonstrates that not even companies with the greatest incentive to comply with the FCPA because they are:

(i) subject to post-enforcement action compliance obligations; and

(ii) subject to “double prosecution” for failure to do so

are able to ensure FCPA compliance across its business organization or eliminate FCPA scrutiny.  In short, FCPA compliance can not be guaranteed in a business organization, rather steps can be taken that only minimize the risk of non-compliance occurring.

Friday Roundup

Friday, February 27th, 2015

Roundup2Save the date, scrutiny updates, coming attraction, job alert, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Save the Date

An event notice for East Coast readers.

On Friday, March 6th, the Fordham Law Review is hosting a free symposium opened to the public titled “Fighting Corruption in American and Abroad.”

To learn more about the event click here.

Preet Bharara (U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York) will be delivering a keynote address and symposium panels will explore the following topics.

(i) What is Corruption?—How Should We Define It, and Why Is It Bad?

(ii) Landmark Domestic Bribery Prosecutions

(iii) Corruption Regulation in Practice via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and

(iv) The Political Economy of Global Corruption Regulation

I will be appearing on the third panel along with: Lanny Breuer (Partner, Covington & Burling LLP);  Jay Holtmeier (Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP); and Lucinda Low (Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP).

I have previously written about FCPA enforcement during Mr. Breuer’s tenure as Assistant Chief of the DOJ Criminal Division, but my panel presentation will concern a different topic – my forthcoming article:  ”The Uncomfortable Truths and Double Standards of Bribery Enforcement.”  The article explores how the U.S. crusade against bribery suffers from several uncomfortable truths, including a double standard regarding corporate interaction with “foreign officials” under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and corporate interaction with U.S. officials under the U.S. laws.

Scrutiny Updates

General Cable Corp.

The company initially disclosed FCPA scrutiny in September 2014 and recently disclosed:

“As we previously reported, we have been reviewing, with the assistance of external counsel, certain commission payments involving sales to customers of our subsidiary in Angola. The review has focused upon payment practices with respect to employees of public utility companies, use of agents in connection with such payment practices, and the manner in which the payments were reflected in our books and records. We have determined at this time that certain employees in our Portugal and Angola subsidiaries directly and indirectly made or directed payments at various times from 2002 through 2013 to officials of Angola government-owned public utilities that raise concerns under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and possibly under the laws of other jurisdictions.

On February 20, 2015, based on the analysis completed at that time with the assistance of our external counsel and forensic accountants, we concluded that we were able to reasonably estimate the amount of profit derived from sales made to the Angolan government-owned public utilities in connection with the payments described above, which we believe are likely to ultimately be disgorged. As a result, we have recorded an estimated charge in the amount of $24 million as an accrual as of December 31, 2014. The accrued amount reflects only an estimate of the Angola-related profits reasonably likely to be disgorged, and does not include provision for any fines, civil or criminal penalties, or other relief, any or all of which could be substantial.”

Cobalt

As highlighted in this prior post, the company recently prevailed over the SEC regarding the company’s FCPA scrutiny.  Set forth below is what Cobalt’s CEO (Joe Bryant) said during a recent investor conference call.

ANALYST: [J]ust one additional question for you. Back in January, you mentioned or had a press release that the SEC terminated its investigation; but the Department of Justice was still going forward with its parallel investigation into activities in Angola. Where does that stand now, Joe?

JOE BRYANT: Darn it [...]. I was hoping to get through this conference without anybody bringing up any FCPA questions.

ANALYST: Sorry about that.

JOE BRYANT: No, I would — it’s pretty simple, really. Our focus in the past several years has obviously been with the SEC; and we brought the DOJ into the investigation early on to make sure that they could run a parallel investigation, if that was what they wanted. By the way, I will say that throughout this entire period, I can’t say enough about the working relationship we developed with the SEC and trying to make sure they understood what we did and they had everything we had in terms of the issue at question.

So we got the SEC out of the way. The DOJ is an independent agency, and it will run its process according to its measures. But I do think that we consider this issue largely behind us.”

Juniper Networks

The company disclosed FCPA scrutiny in August 2013 (albeit in short fashion – see here) and recently disclosed as follows.

“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are conducting investigations into possible violations by the Company of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Company is cooperating with these agencies regarding these matters. The Company’s Audit Committee, with the assistance of independent advisors, has been investigating and conducting a thorough review of possible violations of the FCPA, and has made recommendations for remedial measures, including employee disciplinary actions in foreign jurisdictions, which the Company has implemented and continues to implement. The Company is unable to predict the duration, scope or outcome of the SEC and DOJ investigations, but believes that an adverse outcome is reasonably possible. However, the Company is not able to estimate a reasonable range of possible loss. The SEC and/or DOJ could take action against us or we could agree to settle. In such event, we could be required to pay substantial fines and sanctions and/or implement additional remedial measures; in addition, it may be determined that we violated the FCPA.”

Mondelez International

Kraft Foods long ago disclosed FCPA scrutiny resulting from its acquisition of Cadbury (see here).  Kraft, currently known as Mondelēz International, Inc., recently disclosed as follows.

“[A]fter we acquired Cadbury in February 2010 we began reviewing and adjusting, as needed, Cadbury’s operations in light of applicable standards as well as our policies and practices. We initially focused on such high priority areas as food safety, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and antitrust. Based upon Cadbury’s pre-acquisition policies and compliance programs and our post-acquisition reviews, our preliminary findings indicated that Cadbury’s overall state of compliance was sound. Nonetheless, through our reviews, we determined that in certain jurisdictions, including India, there appeared to be facts and circumstances warranting further investigation. We are continuing our investigations in certain jurisdictions, including in India, and we continue to cooperate with governmental authorities.

As we previously disclosed, on February 1, 2011, we received a subpoena from the SEC in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily related to a facility in India that we acquired in the Cadbury acquisition. The subpoena primarily requests information regarding dealings with Indian governmental agencies and officials to obtain approvals related to the operation of that facility. We are continuing to cooperate with the U.S. and Indian governments in their investigations of these matters, including through ongoing meetings with the U.S. government to discuss potential conclusion of the U.S. government investigation.”

Coming Attraction

This recent post highlighted judicial rejection of a deferred prosecution between the DOJ and Fokker Services.

Fokker recently announced:

“After careful review of the Court’s decision, Fokker Services decided to file a Notice of Appeal. Fokker Services has noticed recent press articles which contain highly speculative assumptions and amounts, not based on facts. Fokker cannot run ahead of the outcome of its appeal and will make further announcement only if and when applicable.”

While the case is outside the FCPA context, this appeal will certainly be one to follow as DPAs (as well as NPAs) are a prominent feature of FCPA enforcement.

Job Alert

Avon Calling!  Avon Colombia S.A.S., a subsidiary of Avon Products, Inc., based in Medellin, Colombia, is looking for an attorney to join the Ethics & Compliance team.  The Compliance Counsel has day-to-day operational responsibility for managing the compliance program in the Andean Cluster (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela).  The program seeks to minimize risk exposure of corporate and regulatory law through company guidance and controls.  A primary activity of the Compliance Counsel is to provide operational advice and interpretation of company policies and procedures, including but not limited to the company’s anti-corruption policy.  As part of the program, the Compliance Counsel supports corporate, regional and local governance, monitoring, auditing, training and communication initiatives.  A primary goal for the Compliance Counsel is to enhance the culture of awareness and adherence to company policies.  Prospective candidates should apply via the Avon website.

Reading Stack

Third parties are not just a corruption risk in the global marketplace, but the domestic marketplace as well.  See here for the New York Daily News article about so-called “expediters” who assist developers navigate bureaucracy “to speed their projects to approval — getting permits faster, addressing violations and filling out key paperwork. It’s an arrangement critics have long slammed as corrupt.”

The most recent edition of the always information Debevoise & Plimpton FCPA Update is here.  Regarding the recent rejection of a DPA in the Fokker Services action (see here) the Update states:

“In the FCPA context and beyond, the Fokker Services decision is a reminder that increased judicial scrutiny of proposed settlement agreements with law enforcement agencies may be the “new normal.” Although the outcome of Fokker Services’ appeal remains to be seen, Judge Leon’s decision may entice prosecutors in future cases to seek harsher terms in DPAs out of concern for heightened judicial scrutiny of proposed DPAs, or instead shy away from DPAs entirely and attempt to achieve sufficient punishment and deterrence through Non-Prosecution Agreements (“NPAs”). In addition, Judge Leon’s concern that no individuals were charged in Fokker Services may further embolden prosecutors to demand individual accountability as part of proposed settlements or in the lead-up to such settlements.”

Some are still drinking the Kool-Aid regarding Morgan Stanley’s so-called declination.  (See here – “A robust compliance program spared Morgan Stanley from prosecution under the FCPA”).  Just goes to show that once a narrative is cast, nothing else seems to matter.

A recent Q&A in the Wall Street Journal’s Risk & Compliance Journal with Pascale Hélène Dubois (the World Bank’s chief suspension and debarment officer).

*****

A good weekend to all.

In Rejecting A DPA, Judge Leon Refuses To Be A Rubber Stamp

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

Rubber StampNon-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the predominate way in which the DOJ resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions against business organizations.  Indeed, as highlighted in this prior post, since 2010 86% of corporate DOJ enforcement actions have involved either an NPA or DPA.

NPAs and DPAs of course are used in other areas as well – which makes this recent opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon (D.D.C.) of interest.  The action, U.S. v. Fokker Services, involved criminal charges against Fokker to unlawfully export U.S. origin goods and Services to Iran, Sudan, and Burma.  In resolving the case, the DOJ and Fokker agreed to an 18 month DPA in which the company agreed to forfeit $10.5 million and to pay an additional $10.5 million in a parallel civil settlement.

No so fast, Judge Leon said in rejecting the DPA. The analysis section of Judge Leon’s opinion states, in pertinent part, as follows (internal citations omitted).

“Both of the parties argue, not surprisingly, that the Court’s role is extremely limited in these circumstances.  They essentially request the Court to serve as a rubber stamp [...].  Unfortunately for the parties, the Court’s role is not quite so restricted.

[...]

“One of the purposes of the Court’s supervisory powers, of course, is to protect the integrity of the judicial process.”

[...]

[T]he government has charged Fokker Services with criminal activity.  And it does not propose to dismiss the case at this point; rather, under the proposed resolution, this criminal case would remain on this Court’s docket for the duration of the agreement’s term.

The parties are, in essence, requesting the Court to lend its judicial imprimatur to their DPA.  In effect, the Court itself would ‘become an instrument of law enforcement.  The parties also seek to retain the possibility of using the full range of the Court’s power in the future should Fokker Services fail to comply with the agreed upon terms.  To put it bluntly, the Court is thus being asked to serve as the leverage over the head of the company.

When, as here, the mechanism chosen by the parties to resolve charged criminal activity requires Court approval, it is the Court’s duty to consider carefully whether that approval should be given.

[...]

I do not undertake this review lightly.  I am well aware, and agree completely, that our supervisory powers are to exercised ‘sparingly, and I fully recognize that this is not a typical case for the use of such powers.  The defendant has signed onto the DPA and is not seeking redress for an impropriety it has identified.  But the Court must consider the public as well as the defendant.  After all, the integrity of judicial proceedings would be compromised by giving the Court’s stamp of approval to either overly-lenient prosecutorial action, or overly-zealous prosecutorial conduct.”

After reviewing various specifics of the Fokker action and resolution (including by noting that “under the DPA no individuals are being prosecuted for their conduct at issue here”), Judge Leon stated:

“While I do not discount Fokker Services’ cooperation and voluntary disclosure or, for that matter, its precarious financial situation, after looking at the DPA in its totality, I cannot help but conclude that the DPA presented here is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Services’ conduct …  In my judgment, it would undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and promote disrespect for the law for it to see a defendant prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies.  [...]  As such, the Court concludes that this agreement does not constitute an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion and I cannot approve it in its current form.”

As referenced in Judge Leon’s opinion, his analysis was very similar to that of Judge John Gleeson (E.D.N.Y) who faced as similar issue in U.S. v. HSBC Bank (see here for the July 2013 post in which Judge Gleeson ultimately approved the DPA in that case).

However, Judge Leon’s opinion contains the following concerning statement similar to Judge Gleeson’s prior ruling.

“The Government, of course, has the clear authority not to prosecute a case.  Indeed, this Court would have no role here if the Government has chosen not to charge Fokker Services with any criminal conduct – even if such a decision was the result of a non-prosecution agreement.”

Such an observation elevates form over substance and gives the DOJ a green light – indeed a further incentive – to use NPAs to resolve alleged instances of corporate criminal liability and thereby bypass the judicial system altogether and insulate its enforcement theories from judicial scrutiny.

At the very least, Judge Leon’s recent order, along with Judge Gleeson’s 2013 order, has started an important legal and policy conversation as to the judiciary’s role in the alternate reality that the DOJ has created and championed through its use of alternative resolution vehicles.

Use of alternative resolution vehicles to resolve alleged corporate criminal liability in the FCPA context presents two distinct, yet equally problematic, legal and public policy issues.

The first is that such vehicles, because they do not result in any actual charges filed against a company – and thus do not require the company to plead guilty to any charges – allow egregious instances of corporate conduct to be resolved too lightly without adequate sanctions and without achieving maximum deterrence.

The second is that such vehicles, because of the same factors discussed above, nudge companies to agree to the vehicles for reasons of risk-aversion and efficiency and not necessarily because the conduct at issue actually violates the FCPA.

While the two instances of judicial scrutiny of DPAs have focused on the first dynamic rather than the second, Judge Leon did nevertheless state:

“[I]he integrity of judicial proceedings would be compromised by giving the Court’s stamp of approval to either overly-lenient prosecutorial action, or overly-zealous prosecutorial conduct.”

Three Cheers For Judge Rakoff

Monday, February 9th, 2015

RakoffIf you have not noticed by now, I admire Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) (and not just because he looks like my Dad in a black robe).

Judge Rakoff recently wrote a review of Professor Brandon Garrett’s book “To Big To Fail” and the below posts provides some excerpts and commentary.

Judge Rakoff writes:

“Under federal law, corporations can be held criminally liable if even a low-level employee, in the course of his or her employment, commits a criminal act that benefits the corporation. One might think, therefore, that federal corporate prosecutions, whether deferred or otherwise, would typically be accompanied by prosecution of the responsible individuals. But more often than not, this has not been the case, especially when large companies are involved. Rather, as Garrett and many others (including this writer) have pointed out, in recent years the federal government has brought many corporate prosecutions in which no employee has been prosecuted or even identified as criminally responsible.

This is especially true in the case of deferred prosecutions. According to Garrett, “in about two thirds of the cases involving deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements and public corporations, the company was punished but no employees were prosecuted.” This suggests that the Department of Justice has been persuaded by its own rhetoric that the main point of these agreements is to change corporate culture, so that company employees of all levels will be dissuaded in the future from committing company-related crimes.”

For years I have exposing the DOJ’s empty rhetoric concerning individual prosecutions in the FCPA context.  Indeed, last October I extended an open invitation to the DOJ to refute statistics published in this post: since 2008,  75% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions have not resulted in any related enforcement action against a company employee.

More specific to the DOJ’s frequent use of NPAs and DPAs in the FCPA context, as highlighted in this recent post, since NPAs and DPAs were introduced to the FCPA context in 2004, if a corporate FCPA enforcement action is resolved soley with an NPA or DPA there is less than a 10% chance that the DOJ will bring related criminal charges against company employees.

Both of these statistics are notable because as Judge Rakoff notes – and recently noted by the DOJ’s Deputy Attorney General (see here) - “corporations do not act criminally, but for the actions of individuals.”

Judge Rakoff further states:

“Given such patent ineffectiveness when it comes to deferred prosecutions, it is somewhat surprising that Garrett argues that tighter enforcement of deferred prosecution agreements can still make them effective. Perhaps. But one also wonders whether the impact of sending a few guilty executives to prison for orchestrating corporate crimes might have a far greater effect than any compliance program in discouraging misconduct, at far less expense and without the unwanted collateral consequences of punishing innocent employees and shareholders.”

In the FCPA context, I have not called for NPAs and DPAs to be revised, but rather have consistently stated for at least three years that NPAs and DPAs should be abolished.  In calling for abolition of NPAs and DPAs it is important to recognize that such a proposal does not seek to abolish a long-standing feature of the U.S. criminal justice system, but rather a failed experiment brought to the FCPA context approximately ten years ago.  As previously highlighted, my proposal to abolish NPAs and DPAs is coupled with a corporate compliance defense (see here and here).

In conclusion, Judge Rakoff further states:

“The preference for deferred prosecutions also reflects some less laudable motives, such as the political advantages of a settlement that makes for a good press release, the avoidance of unpredictable courtroom battles with skilled, highly paid adversaries, and even the dubious benefit to the Department of Justice and the defendant of crafting a settlement that limits, or eliminates entirely, judicial oversight of implementation of the agreement.”

Spot-on Judge Rakoff.

Friday Roundup

Friday, February 6th, 2015

Roundup2Quotable, on offense, scrutiny alert, to FCPA Inc., and resource alert.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Quotable

This article in The Recorder reports on a recent public event in which Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell spoke.  According to the article:

“Caldwell also said the Criminal Division would cut down on its use of deferred prosecution agreements, which she said had become the ‘default’ means to resolve corporate cases. ‘Deferred prosecution agreements were a bit overused.’ Instead, Caldwell told the audience to expect more declinations from the government, which would let companies, individual targets and the public know when an investigation is being closed without charges.”

Glad to see that Caldwell agrees that DPAs have become a default means to resolve cases and overused –  central themes of my 2010 article “The Facade of FCPA Enforcement” and my 2010 Senate FCPA testimony.

On Offense

This prior post highlighted Canada’s 2013 enforcement action against Griffiths Energy International Inc. (“GEI”) under Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”) for allegedly bribing Chad’s Ambassador to Canada, Mahamoud Adam Bechir and his wife Ms. Nouracham Niam.

According to this recent article in the Calgary Sun Bechir and Niam are going on offense.  The article notes:

“The former Chadian ambassador to Canada and his wife have launched a $150-million lawsuit claiming “false” bribery allegations against them have sullied their reputation. Mahamoud Adam Bechir and his spouse, Nouracham Niam, are suing law firm Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP, partner Kristine Robidoux and the current corporate owner of Griffiths Energy International (GEI) Inc. In a statement of claim filed in Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench the couple say claims by Griffiths it paid a $2-million bribe to the wife’s company were untrue.”

Scrutiny Alert

Staying north of the border, as noted in this report,

“MagIndustries Corp., a China-backed Canadian potash company, said it has formed a special committee to look into allegations some of its officers and employees have breached the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. Canadian police visited the company’s head office in Toronto with a search warrant on Jan. 22 in connection with the allegation, MagIndustries said Thursday in a statement. “No charges have been laid in connection with this investigation and MagIndustries has no knowledge of any such breach and will be cooperating fully with the authorities,” the company said. MagIndustries, controlled by Evergreen Resources Holdings Ltd. according to data compiled by Bloomberg, is developing the Mengo potash mine in Republic of Congo.”

To FCPA Inc.

It happens so often it is difficult to keep track of, but I try my best.

In the latest example of a DOJ FCPA enforcement attorney departing for FCPA Inc. Ropes & Gray announced that “Ryan Rohlfsen, senior trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section” who was as “part of an elite group of federal prosecutors responsible for the global enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)” has joined the firm as a partner.

Resource Alert

My former law firm, Foley & Lardner, recently announced “Foley Global Risk Solutions.”  As stated in the release:

“Foley & Lardner LLP announced today the launch of Foley Global Risk Solutions – a new cost-effective service offering designed to help companies operating overseas comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Foley GRS is an innovative, web-based service offering that provides businesses with a fully integrated FCPA compliance solution. The product, which relies on cutting-edge technology, will be offered for a fixed annual subscription fee. [...] Foley GRS is the first-of-its-kind integrated legal services solution using a technology-based platform that delivers a comprehensive, closed-loop program that includes risk assessments, current and periodically updated policies and procedures, training for employees, regular communications, and most importantly, access to legal advice and counseling on FCPA issues that arise during the course of business operations.”

*****

A good weekend to all.