Kazuo Okada « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Kazuo Okada’ Category

Friday Roundup

Friday, April 12th, 2013

The U.S. intervenes, I disagree, I agree, and say what. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

U.S. Intervenes in Wynn-Okada Dispute

Numerous prior posts (see here, here and here for instance) have highlighted the dispute between Wynn Resorts and its former board member Kazuo Okada. Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported as follows. “The U.S. asked to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Wynn Resorts Ltd., which accused Okada of making improper payments to Philippine gambling regulators. The Justice Department said in an April 8 filing in state court in Las Vegas that it doesn’t want the civil case to disrupt its criminal investigation into the same underlying allegations.” According to Bloomberg: “Okada’s lawyers have said they would probably oppose the request “in whole or in part,” according to the filing. Wynn Resorts won’t oppose its request, the Justice Department said.” For additional coverage, see here from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

I Disagree

Earlier this week a reader of the FCPA Blog (see here) posed the following question. “One thing that has not gotten much discussion is the possibility that the apparent slowdown in FCPA enforcement may be due to the spike in declinations.”

Putting aside the big-picture and highly relevant issue of what is a declination (see here as well as other embedded posts on this issue), when addressing the issue of FCPA enforcement statistics, it is important to keep in mind (as highlighted in this prior post) the following.

Just three unique historical events (Iraq Oil for Food, Bonny Island, Nigeria conduct, and Panalpina-related issues) served as the foundation for 35% of all corporate FCPA enforcement actions between 2007-2011 and resulted in 55% of settlement amounts in corporate enforcement actions between 2007-2011. Adding just the 2008 Siemens enforcement action to the settlement amount calculation, results in just four unique historical events accounting for 77% of settlement amounts in corporate enforcement actions between 2007-2011.

Recognizing these events and how they impacted FCPA enforcement data is important to understanding why FCPA enforcement has declined in recent years.

Even though FCPA enforcement has declined in recent years, unique events giving rise to FCPA enforcement actions have remained relatively constant between 2007 and 2012. In 2007, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 15 unique events. In 2008, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 10 unique events. In 2009, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 11 unique events. In 2010, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 14 unique events. In 2011, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 16 unique events. In 2012, corporate FCPA enforcement actions were the result of 12 unique events.

I Agree

Dieter Juedes (who like me is a product of Sheboygan County, Wisconsin) recently published “Taming the FCPA Overreach Through an Adequate Procedures Defense” in the William & Mary Business Law Review. Among other things, the article “proposes specific statutory language that Congress could use in adopting such a defense and it establishes precise factors to be promulgated by the DOJ and SEC for determining whether a firm’s procedure would be deemed “adequate.”

Given my prior article “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense,” I agree with the general thrust of Juedes’s article.

Say What?

I don’t quite understand the logic or rationale of this op-ed piece in the South China Morning Post by Robert Precht (director of Justice Labs Limited, a Hong Kong think tank).

Precht argues that ”the efforts of some Western countries to enforce their own anti-bribery laws in China are more likely to produce false accusations and hinder democratic reform than reduce corruption.” He states as follows. “One of the unintended harms of enforcing the US anti-bribery law in China is that it may actually stifle efforts to end corruption. US journalists, human rights workers and university researchers play an important role in shining light on the darker recesses of Chinese politics. Preventing Americans from making gifts to Chinese to obtain information useful to promote democratic reform will hinder the disclosure role the Americans play.”

According to Precht, “the solution is simple.” He argues that “the US Congress should amend the law, providing that it will only be applied in countries that meet certain minimum requirements of democracy and will not be applied in authoritarian regimes such as China.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, September 21st, 2012

Strange things tend to happen on Halloween, does your foreign local counsel present FCPA risk, insights from the boardroom, checking in on the Wynn-Okada battle royale, tobacco companies in the Middle East, a hat tip, and unmasked. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Halloween Hearing Date

Strange things tend to happen on Halloween. Thus, it is fitting that U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison (S.D. Tex.) has set October 31st as the hearing date for the motion to dismiss in the SECs FCPA enforcement action against Mark Jackson and James Ruehlen. See here for a prior post linking to the briefs and arguments. How strange is this? It is believed that the last time the SEC stood before a federal court judge to defend its FCPA enforcement theories was in 2002. As noted in this previous post, the SEC lost that case.

Foreign Counsel Risk

A company engages foreign local counsel to help it accomplish a business objective. The company pays thousands of dollars in legal bills to the counsel without probably giving much thought to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risk.

In this recent article in the Duquesne Business Law Journal, Zachary Cregar (Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Senior Litigation Auditor) sets forth the need to include foreign legal counsel due diligence and audits within an FCPA compliance program.

Cregar concludes the article as follows. “Foreign outside counsel supervision and legal bill auditing is not only a successful method of detecting corrupt payments, but it pays dividends beyond the realm of FCPA compliance. Cost savings from discovered billing irregularities will likely justify the cost of the program itself. While companies’ bottom lines are impacted by over-billing or fraudulent legal invoices, the financial stakes grow ever higher within the purview of the FCPA. Corporate anti-corruption and due diligence policies may be helpful in reducing hefty FCPA violation penalties after the fact. However, only vigorous, real-time auditing and detection of corrupt payments at the onset will avoid foreign corruption from even occurring.”

Current instances of FCPA scrutiny which involve, at least in part, questions regarding foreign legal counsel include Wal-Mart’s conduct in Mexico and Las Vegas Sands conduct in Macau.

Insights From the Boardroom

PwC’s Annual Corporate Director Survey, “Insights from the Boardroom 2012,” is available for download here. It contains a few FCPA / bribery / corruption related statistics.

Which of the following has your company done in response to the 2011 SEC whistleblower rules? 43% of respondents indicated that their companies have expanded the role of internal audit for bribery and corruption compliance and 11% of respondents indicated that their companies scheduled more board discussions regarding bribery and corruption.

I argue in “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense” here that, among other reasons, the FCPA should be amended to include a compliance defense because such a defense will better incentivize corporate compliance and thus reduce improper conduct. I state that organizations with existing FCPA compliance policies and procedures will be incentivized to make existing programs better and that organizations currently without stand-alone FCPA policies and procedures (and statistics indicate there are many) will be incentivized to spend finite resources to implement compliance policies and procedures.

Imagine the FCPA is amended in 2012 to include a compliance defense. What would the numbers in PwC’s 2013 survey look like if respondents asked “which of the following has your company done in response to the FCPA compliance defense amendment.” I can only speculate as to the exact numbers, but I am confident in saying that more than 43% of respondents would indicate that their companies expanded the role of internal audit for bribery and corruption compliance and that more than 11% of respondents would indicate that their companies scheduled more board discussions regarding bribery and corruption.

Another question in the survey was the following. Indicate if you would like your board to devote more time in the upcoming year to considering the following matters? As to bribery and corruption concerns, 2% said yes, much more time and focus than in the past; 20% said yes, but not a great increase from the past; 75% said no, a change is unnecessary; and 3% said no, decrease our time and focus— we spend too much time on this.

The PwC survery occurred this past summer and was based on responses of 860 public company directors (70% of whom serve on the board of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue).

Wynn-Okada

As noted in this previous summary post, it is one of the strangest instances of FCPA scrutiny one can imagine. A corporate board member accuses the company of conduct that could implicate the FCPA, which then causes the SEC to open an inquiry, which then results in the company accusing the board member of separate and distinct conduct that could implicate the FCPA.

Its the Wynn-Okada battle royale.

Earlier this week Kazuo Okada (President of Aruze USA, Inc. – Aruze is the largest stockholder of Wynn Resorts with current ownership of approximately 20% of the outstanding shares) released this letter to Wynn’s shareholders concerning various corporate governance changes.

The letter states, under the heading “Suspicious $135 million donation to the University of Macau Development Foundation” as follows.

“In April 2011, the Board met, discussed, and approved a pledge by Wynn Macau, Limited (“Wynn Macau”), a subsidiary of the Company, to donate HK$1 billion (roughly $135 million) to the University of Macau Development Foundation, at a time when Wynn Macau was seeking local government approval to develop a third casino. This donation is suspicious for a number of reasons, including its enormous size, the fact that the 10-year term of the pledge matches precisely the length of the casino license Wynn Resorts was seeking, and the fact that the lead trustee of the University of Macau Development Foundation also has a position in the Macau government which enables him to influence the issuance of gaming licenses. Mr. Okada questioned and objected to the donation and was ultimately the sole director to vote against it. Mr. Okada has noted that “I am at a complete loss as to the business justification for the donation, other than that it was an attempt to curry favor with those that have ultimate authority for issuing gaming licenses.” Following the April 2011 board meeting, pursuant to his rights as a director of the Company and in furtherance of his fiduciary duties to stockholders of the Company, Mr. Okada, sought to further investigate the Wynn Macau donation and requested additional information from Wynn Resorts concerning the donation and related matters. When the Company refused to provide the information, Mr. Okada took legal action and was vindicated by a court order requiring Wynn Resorts to comply with Mr. Okada’s reasonable requests. As Mr. Okada feared, the questionable Wynn Macau donation has already spawned at least four stockholder lawsuits against the Company and investigations by both the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (for possible violations of law including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and the Nevada Gaming Board. Not only is this enormous financial commitment a drain on the Company’s coffers, but now Wynn Resorts stockholders will be saddled with the added costs associated with responding to the regulatory investigations and lawsuits. If the results of these investigations and lawsuits include the development of facts regarding legally questionable practices by the Company, stockholders will be at still further risk.”

In response, Wynn Resorts issued this statement which states as follows. ““Aruze has not been a stockholder of Wynn Resorts, Limited since February 18, 2012 when its shares were redeemed by the Wynn Board after a lengthy, third-party investigation uncovered prima facie evidence of improper conduct under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Mr. Okada, Universal Entertainment and Aruze in their dealings with Philippine officials. This most recent filing is a regrettable attempt to divert attention from the issues facing Mr. Okada and Aruze. Given the fact that Aruze was ejected seven months ago as a Wynn shareholder based on conduct unacceptable for a gaming licensee, it has absolutely no rights as a shareholder to nominate directors and its invalid nominations have been rejected on this basis.”

Tobacco Companies in the Middle East

An interesting article (here) from the Saudi Gazette.

The article states as follows. “In most countries, public smoking is banned. Taxes on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco related products are high, and labeling on cigarette packs is often very graphic and clear: Smoking kills! From the United States to Australia, governments are clamping down on tobacco companies with regulations to throttle consumption and it seems to be working. And so, tobacco companies have to seek other markets. The Middle East is fertile ground as anti-smoking legislation is weak at best, and a fast growing birthrate means a higher number of potential smokers. As a result, big tobacco companies quickly established regional headquarters for the GCC market in the UAE and set to work.” The article then describes how a source tells of companies reaching out to “area [government] officials to lessen any impact on tobacco sales.”

As noted in this prior post, in August 2010, U.S. tobacco companies Alliance One International and Universal Corporation resolved FCPA enforcement actions.

Hat Tip

A hat tip to Christopher Matthews, Samuel Rubenfeld and others associated with the Wall Street Journal’s Corruption Currents page on their two-year anniversary. Corruption Currents (here) is a daily read for me and should be for anyone interested in FCPA and related topics.

Who is that Masked Man?

A small town Midwesterner who saw the world and became interested in a law is who. Thanks to Tom Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) for the opportunity to tell my story. See here for the Q&A.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, August 31st, 2012

The guidance is coming - the guidance is coming, compliance by the numbers, checking in on Wynn-Okada, industry news, and refreshing candor. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Guidance

Since Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer announced last November that the DOJ would be issuing FCPA guidance in 2012 (see here for the prior post), approximately 25 years after Congress encouraged the DOJ to issue guidance, FCPA Inc. has been waiting patiently, and too long (see here for the prior post), for such guidance.

There have been whispers that the guidance would be released in October and this recent Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post by Chris Matthews, citing “people familiar with the matter” confirms those whispers.

Compliance Practices By The Numbers

What percentage of the Fortune 500 have publicly available, stand-alone FCPA compliance policies and procedures? Do the policies and procedures include discussion of the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions? How do companies address facilitation payments? What about gift-giving?

Answers can be found in this recent article in Corporate Counsel by Ryan McConnell (Baker & McKenzie), Jay Martin (Baker Hughes) and Paula Bonavides (a University of Houston law student).

Wynn-Okada

Remember Kazuo Okada, the former business partner of Steve Wynn, accused of various FCPA violations by Wynn Resorts earlier this year? Given the nature of Wynn’s investigative report authored by former FBI Director Louie Freeh of Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (see this prior post which provides a detailed summary of the report) it is not surprising, as noted in this Reuters article, that Okada has filed a defamation lawsuit in Japan against the casino company and its officials. According to the article, Okada is claiming $140 million in damages and he alleges that Wynn’s actions led to a decline in his company’s stock price, a decline in new business opportunities, and damaged his reputation. As noted in the Reuters article, a Wynn spokesperson said that Okada’s lawsuit is an “attempt to distract” from the real issues facing Okada and his company “as identified in the Freeh Report.”

Industry News

Speaking of Freeh, in addition to his role in the Wynn-Okada dispute, he is also known in FCPA circles for being the monitor in the Daimler FCPA enforcement action. (See here for the prior post).

As noted in this release from Pepper Hamilton LLP, the firm “and the lawyers of Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP announced the union of the legal talent of the two firms and Pepper Hamilton’s acquisition of Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC.”

Refreshing Candor

FCPA Inc. participants are of course an active group of speakers. But rarely does one find much candor in the discussions. FCPA Inc. participants often filter what they say cognizant of client issues and mindful of what the small world of enforcement agency officials will think of them. I’ve had numerous exchanges with industry participants in which a person says something insightful or provocative. I then offer up the opportunity to publish a guest post on FCPA Professor, and the person declines.

Against this backdrop, this recent transcript of the 2012 Chief Legal Officer Leadership Forum hosted by Argyle Executive Forum is a nice read in that Adam Siegel (the c0-chair of global white collar group at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) speaks with refreshing candor. Siegel (here, a former federal prosecutor) states as follows.

Regarding a compliance defense.

“Well, the U.K. act, even though it’s perceived as being broader and worse than the FCPA, has this wonderful feature to it, which is that a corporation is legally not responsible if it had adopted adequate procedures. It’s a great argument that we can take to the business about why they ought to invest in an appropriate compliance program. It means we’re actually innocent and you’re not begging some 27-year-old – apologies to anyone in the room of that age – to exercise their enormous discretion and give the corporation and shareholders a pass because some rogue employee in Indonesia has decided that they were going to do something to hit their targets this year.”

On the increase in FCPA enforcement.

“In 2005, due to some changes in personnel and some other issues of justice, someone realized that they can use this statute more aggressively. If you think back to 2007, we had a major record in FCPA civil and criminal finds; $150 million. I think people were amazed that in that year that was what the government was able to do. Fast forward to 2010 and you’re at $1.8 billion. I mean, if any of us in this room have a business that has grown at that rate, I think we’d all be very happy and our shareholders would be delighted.”

On the global trend of increased enforcement.

“I think some of it is pressure from globalization. I think a lot of it is looking at the numbers on that chart. I think a lot of the global anti-bribery movement is driven by regulators around the world saying, Okay, a German company just paid $300 million to the U.S. That’s sort of funny to us. Where are we in this? I think there is some international pressure. There is the pressure of raising the bar, but there’s also a very cynical pressure of raising money. We’re in an economic climate today where I don’t think there’s a single government in the world that isn’t struggling to find resource. This area has emerged, again, as a money making center, which is kind of bizarre.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Friday, May 18th, 2012

Wal-Mart news, the shadow regulatory state, save the date, checking in on Wynn-Okada, and there’s an app for that.

Wal-Mart News

Yesterday Wal-Mart released its first quarter financial results and stated as follows in its SEC filing.

The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”), which is composed solely of independent directors, is conducting an internal investigation into, among other things, alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) and other alleged crimes or misconduct in connection with foreign subsidiaries including Wal-Mart de México, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Walmex”) and whether prior allegations of such violations and/or misconduct were appropriately handled by the Company. The Audit Committee and the Company have engaged outside counsel from a number of law firms and other advisors who are assisting in the on-going investigation of these matters. The Company is also conducting a voluntary global review of its policies, practices and internal controls for FCPA compliance. The Company is engaged in strengthening its global anti-corruption compliance programs through appropriate remedial anti-corruption measures. In November 2011, the Company voluntarily disclosed that investigative activity to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the SEC.

The Company has been informed by the DOJ and the SEC that it is also the subject of their respective investigations into possible violations of the FCPA. The Company is cooperating with the investigations by the DOJ and the SEC. A number of federal and local government agencies in Mexico have also recently initiated investigations of these matters. Walmex is cooperating with the Mexican governmental agencies conducting these investigations. Furthermore, lawsuits relating to the matters under investigation have recently been filed by several of the Company’s shareholders against it, its current directors, certain of its former directors, certain of its current and former officers and certain of Walmex’s current and former officers.

The Company could be exposed to a variety of negative consequences as a result of the matters noted above. There could be one or more enforcement actions in respect of the matters that are the subject of some or all of the ongoing government investigations, and such actions, if brought, may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions, cease and desist orders or other relief, criminal convictions and/or penalties. The shareholder lawsuits may result in judgments against the Company and its current and former directors and officers named in those proceedings. The Company cannot predict accurately at this time the outcome or impact of the government investigations, the shareholder lawsuits, or its own internal investigation and review. In addition, the Company expects to incur costs in responding to requests for information or subpoenas seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with the government investigations, in defending the shareholder lawsuits, and in conducting its internal investigation and review, and it cannot predict at this time the ultimate amount of all such costs. These matters may require the involvement of certain members of the Company’s senior management that could impinge on the time they have available to devote to other matters relating to the business. The Company may also see ongoing media and governmental interest in these matters that could impact the perception among certain audiences of its role as a corporate citizen.

The Company is in the early stages of assessing and responding to the governmental investigations, the shareholder lawsuits, and its internal investigation and review are on-going. Although the Company does not presently believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, given the inherent uncertainties in such situations, the Company can provide no assurance that these matters will not be material to its business in the future.

Wal-Mart stock closed yesterday at $61.68. On Friday April 20th (the day before the New York Times article – see here for the prior post) Wal-Mart stock closed at $62.45. See here for a recent Forbes column titled “Mexican Bribery Gave Me A Chance To Make Money In Wal-Mart” in which the contributor states as follows. “My 30 years of experience in the markets has repeatedly shown to me that whenever a company is accused of violations of FCPA, headlines are always scary, but in the end, the downdraft in the stock invariably becomes a buying opportunity.”

In other Wal-Mart news, as highlighted in this prior post, Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce have taken a keen interest in Wal-Mart’s potential FCPA exposure. Yesterday, the Congressmen sent this letter to Wal-Mart CEO Michael Dukes in which they state, among other things, that “we have obtained hundreds of internal documents relating to the Wal-Mart bribery allegations.”

The Shadow Regulatory State

In this previous post, I called for the abolition of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements in the FCPA context. I noted how use of NPAs and DPAs to resolve alleged corporate criminal liability in the FCPA context present two distinct, yet equally problematic public policy issues and highlighted other critiques of NPAs and DPAs as well.

This recent report titled “The Shadow Regulatory State: The Rise of Deferred Prosecution Agreements” by James Copland (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) caught my eye. Copland states as follows.

“… [P]rosecutors’ virtually unchecked powers under DPAs and NPAs threaten our constitutional framework. To be sure, prosecutors are acting upon duly enacted laws, but federal criminal provisions are often vague or ambiguous, and the fact that prosecutors and large corporations alike feel obliged to reach agreement, rather than follow an orderly regulatory process and litigate disagreements in court, denies the judiciary an opportunity to clarify the boundaries of such laws. Instead, the laws come to mean what the prosecutors say they mean—and companies do what the prosecutors say they must. Federal prosecutors are thus assuming the role of judge (interpreting the law) and of legislature (setting broad policy choices about industry conduct), substantially eroding the separation of powers. That such discretion is often delegated to private contractors with sweeping powers—namely, corporate monitors—makes the denial of justice even graver.”

Save the Date

I am pleased to be participating in this June 5th program sponsored by The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education in cooperation with Dorsey & Whitney & LLP, and Pepper Hamilton, LLP. Titled “The New Era of FCPA Enforcement and the Collapse of the Africa Sting Cases: Time to Reevaluate?” the program will “evaluate the impact of Africa Sting cases in view of key New Era trends, calls for FCPA reform, and a reevaluation of the prosecution standards utilized by the DOJ and the SEC in enforcing statutes.” Panelists include DOJ, SEC, and OECD representatives, Stanley Sporkin and noted FCPA practitioners including Greg Andres (former DOJ who testified on behalf of the DOJ at the November 2010 Senate and June 2011 House FCPA hearings).

Wynn-Okada

Remember that Wynn-Okada dispute? (See here, here, here, and here for the prior posts).

Here is an update from Vegas Inc.

There’s An App For That

Click 4 Compliance recently launched “C4C Mobile Compliance Officer App” (see here). In a release (here) the company says the free mobile app “places practical anti-corruption compliance tips (including the FCPA and UK Bribery Act) in the hands of your company’s workforce and partners.”

*****

It’s an FCPA world – a good weekend to all.

Okada Cites “Federal Interest In The Uniform Interpretation Of The FCPA” In Seeking To Remove Wynn Complaint To Federal Court

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

Previous posts here, here and here have discussed the battle royale between Wynn Resorts and its Director Kazuo Okada and his companies. The dispute has included Okada accusing Wynn of conduct that could implicate the FCPA and Wynn also accusing Okada of separate and distinct conduct that could implicate the FCPA. It is a rare instance of the FCPA being used offensively to seemingly accomplish business objectives.

Yesterday, attorneys for Kazuo Okada’s companies, Aruze USA, Inc. and Universal Entertainment Corporation, filed a notice of removal (here) in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. The notice of removal asserts that the wide-ranging civil complaint previously filed by Wynn Resorts in Nevada state court depends “on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question regarding the scope and interpretation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” The notice of removal states that Wynn’s state court complaint seeks a “judicial declaration confirming [Wynn's] conclusion that Defendants are ‘unsuitable’ because they violated the FCPA.”

Under the heading “Uniform Interpretation of the FCPA”, the notice of removal states that “there is an important federal interest in the uniform interpretation of the FCPA” and “given the exclusive federal jurisdiction over criminal and injunctive relief for FCPA violations, and the potential for conflicting interpretations of the ambiguous statutory language, [the federal court] should retain subject matter jurisdiction to ensure that the federal law relating to the FCPA is interpreted in a uniform manner.”

FCPA caselaw is sparse. Because of the “carrots” and “sticks’ relevant to resolving criminal FCPA enforcement actions (as well as the SEC’s neither admit nor deny settlement policy), few corporate or individual FCPA defendants put the enforcement agencies to their burden of proof and thus many FCPA enforcement theories escape judicial scrutiny.

This is what makes the Wynn-Okada dispute so tantalizing for FCPA followers. The civil dispute implicating the FCPA is between well funded rivals who are staking out litigation positions (including as to the FCPA) that are likely to result in judicial scrutiny.

Separately yesterday, attorneys for Kazuo Okada’s companies, Aruze USA, Inc. and Universal Entertainment Corporation filed an expansive counterclaim and answer. As to Wynn’s $135 million donation to the University of Macau (see here for the prior post), the counterclaim and answer states as follows. The donation “suspiciously … covers essentially the same 10-year period” as Wynn Macau’s current gaming concession, that Okada was “concerned about the lack of deliberation of the boards of Wynn Resorts and Wynn Macau” in approving the donation, and that the “Chancellor of University of Macau is also the head of Macao’s government, with ultimate oversight of gaming matters.” As to the Freeh Report (see here for the prior post), the counterclaim and answer states that “Freeh was not preparing an objective report of the facts by an ‘independent’ investigator – he was providing the [Wynn] Board with an argumentative document as an advocate against Mr. Okada.”