Mexico « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Mexico’ Category

The FCPA’s First Mega Enforcement Action

Monday, March 18th, 2013

[This post is part of a periodic series regarding "old" FCPA enforcement actions]

The year was 1982 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was nearing five years old. Up to this point, enforcement was sparse and focused on single-actor type cases. See here, here, here, here and here for FCPA enforcement actions up to this point.

In 1982, the first FCPA mega-case was brought and it involved five corporate defendants and twelve individual defendants.

Specifically, in October 1982, the DOJ brought an indictment (here) against:

Crawford Enterprises Inc. (“CEI”) (a Houston based private company that sold compression equipment systems to oil and gas companies);
Donald Crawford (CEI’s Chairman and sole shareholder and, at certain relevant times, CEI’s President);
William Hall (CEI’s Executive Vice President and, at certain relevant times, CEI’s President);
Ricardo Beltran (President and majority shareholder of Grupo Industrial Delta, a Mexican corporation);
Mario Gonzalez (a U.S. citizen who assisted Grupo Delta and CEI communicate with certain alleged foreign officials);
Andres Garcia (a U.S. citizen who assisted Grupo Delta and CEI communicate with certain alleged foreign officials);
George McLean (Vice President of Solar Turbines International (“Solar”), a division of International Harvester Company);
Luis Uriarte (the Latin American Regional Manager of Solar);
Al Eyester (President of Ruston Gas Turbines “Ruston”);and
James Smith (Vice President of Ruston).

The indictment charged a conspiracy between the defendants and others to pay money to Mexican foreign officials and Grupo Delta “knowing that all or a portion of such money would be offered, given or promised directly or indirectly” to foreign officials for the purpose of influencing the acts and decisions of the officials “in their official capacity, and inducing them to use their influence with Pemex so as to affect and influence the acts and decisions of Pemex in order to assist” Crawford, the other defendants, and others in “obtaining or retaining business with Pemex.”

The indictment alleges that Petroleos Mexicanos (“Pemex”) was the “national oil company wholly owned by the Government of the Republic of Mexico and was responsible for the exploration and production of all of the oil and natural gas resources of Mexico and for acquiring the equipment, including compression equipment systems, necessary for such exploration and production.”

The indictment alleged that “Pemex was an instrumentality of a foreign government” and that two individuals (Ignacio de Leon and Jesus Chavarria) were “foreign officials” based on their positions of “subdirector of Pemex responsible for the purchase of goods and equipment on behalf of Pemex” and “subdirector of Pemex responsible for the exploration and production of Mexican oil and natural gas.”

[As an aside, it should be noted that in the recent "foreign official" challenges, the DOJ has argued that its charging decision in the Crawford cases as to Pemex demonstrated the validity of its position that employees of SOEs are "foreign officials" under the FCPA. For instance, the recent FCPA Guidance states that the SEC and DOJ ‘‘have pursued cases involving instrumentalities since the time of the FCPA’s enactment’’ and that the ‘‘second-ever FCPA case charged by the DOJ’’ involved bribes to executives of the Mexican national oil company.

However being consistently wrong, does not make one right and, as noted in my article "Grading the FCPA Guidance," missing from the Guidance discussion or associated citations on this issue, is any reference to the fact that George McLean, the only defendant in the series of related cases to put DOJ to its burden of proof at trial, was found not guilty by the jury.]

The conspiracy charge alleged that CEI and Crawford agreed to pay and paid the “foreign officials” “bribes equalling approximately 4.5% of each Pemex purchase order for compression equipment systems in which” CEI participated and that “it was further a part of the conspiracy” that CEI and Crawford arranged with defendants Beltran, Gonzalez and Garcia that Grupo Delta would: “(a) hold itself out as the Mexican agent of CEI, while in truth acting primarily as the conduit for the bribe payments; (b) disguise the bribe payments as ‘commissions’ due by providing to CEI false and fictitious invoice for each payment received; and (c) provide Gonzalez and Garcia with a base of operations from which to perform their function as middlemen and channels of communications between the co-conspirators” and the foreign officials.”

The indictment further alleged that the defendants used the term “folks” as a code word for the “foreign officials” “in order to conceal from others their true identities as Pemex officials and the existence of the bribe scheme.” The indictment alleged that “in order to create a pool of money with which to pay bribes” CEI along with Solar and Ruston “submitted to Pemex bids which were inflated to include a 4.5% markup for the “folks.”

The indictment alleged that CEI, along with Solar and Ruston received purchase orders from Pemex for compression equipment systems in the approximate amount of $225 million and that approximately $10 million in bribe payments were made to the “foreign officials” as part of the bribery scheme.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the indictment also alleged approximately fifty substantive FCPA anti-bribery violations against various combinations of the defendants. The indictment also charged CEI, Crawford and Hall with an obstruction charge based on allegations that the defendants destroyed certain documents relevant to a grand jury subpoena.

Media reports described the action as the first major criminal investigation under the FCPA. According to the reports, in November 1982, CEI, Crawford, Hall, Garcia, McLean, Uriate, and Eyster pleaded not guilty. Crawford and Hall stated that while commission payments were made to Grupo, no such bribes were paid to Pemex officials.

CEI released a statement which said that “despite vigorous and repeated denials by Crawford Enterprises of any wrongdoing in connection with these allegations, the investigation has continued for nearly 3.5 years.” The company said that Pemex and the Mexican government had looked into similar charges and found no wrongdoing in the award of Pemex contracts to Crawford. The company’s statement further indicated as follows. “Four factors accounted for CEI’s success in becoming one of Pemex’s principal gas compression contractors: its proven experience in the industry; its aggressive delivery schedules that other firms simply could not match; its maintenance and repair of equipment installed in Mexico; and the lower costs to Pemex as a result of all the above.”

Prior to the above-reference October 1982 indictment, in September 1982 the DOJ charged Ruston Gas Turbines Inc., C.E. Miller Corporation and Charles Miller based on the same core set of allegations. The DOJ charged Ruston Gas Turbines in a one count criminal information (see here) with a substantive FCPA violation and the company pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay a $750,000 fine (see here). The DOJ charged C.E. Miller Corporation and Miller (President, Chairman of the Board, and majority shareholder of the company) in a one count criminal information charging substantive FCPA violations and aiding and abetting FCPA violations. (See here). C.E. Miller Corporation and Miller both pleaded guilty and the company was ordered to pay a $20,000 fine and placed on probation for three years (see here) and Miller was sentenced to three years probation (see here).

Prior to the above-referenced September 1982 charges, in May 1981 the DOJ charged Gary Bateman (an International Sales Manager for CEI and also Chairman of the Board, President and sole shareholder of Applied Process Products Overseas, Inc.) in a multi-count information (see here) charging various misdemeanor violations of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act concerning the transportation of money to Mexico in connection with the bribery scheme. Bateman pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a civil penalty of approximately $330,000. In January 1983, the DOJ also charged Applied Process Products Overseas, Inc. in a one-count information (here) charging a substantive FCPA violation based on the same core set of allegations. The company pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. (See here).

After the above-referenced October 1982 charges, in November 1982 the DOJ also filed a criminal information against International Harvester (see here). The information was based on the same core set of allegations as set forth above and based on the conduct of its employees McLean and Uriarte. International Harvester pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA (see here) and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and agreed to also pay $40,000 civil cost reimbursement.

The DOJ’s offer of proof in the International Harvester case (see here) contained the following statement.

“After Solar had agreed to participate and to cooperate with CEI, and pursuant to the 1977 enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [International Harvester's long-standing Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Business Conduct] was revised and supplemented to affirm that improper payments prohibited by the Act were also prohibited as a matter of company policy. In 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980, through an annual audit process, each International Harvester managerial employee was required to certify his or her compliance and to report any action that might conflict with company policy for review by the Office of the General Counsel and corrective action, if warranted. During those years, Uriarte and McLean each reported in the annual audit process that he was aware of International Harvester policy and had taken no action in violation thereof. Insofar as each of them participated in the conspiracy described herein, he accordingly concealed from International Harvester his participation and the participation of the Solar Turbine Division. Neither Solar employee held a position which required him to report to International Harvester management. There has been no evidence that any officers, directors or management of International Harvester knew of or participated in the conspiracy charged.”

In January 1983, the DOJ charged Marquis King (an officer and director of C.E. Miller) in a one-count information charging a misdemeanor violation of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act concerning the transportation of money to Mexico in connection with the bribery scheme. (See here). King pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to 14 months probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. (See here).

In June 1985, CEI pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 46 substantive FCPA violations. (See here). CEI agreed to pay a $10,000 criminal fine as to the conspiracy charge and $75,000 as to each of the 46 substantive charges for a total fine amount of $3,460,000. At the same time, the following defendants pleaded nolo contendere: Donald Crawford, Al Eyster, James Smith, Andres Garcia, and William Hall. Crawford pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 46 substantive FCPA violations and was ordered to pay a total fine amount of $309,000 (see here); Eyster pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 41 substantive FCPA violations and was ordered to pay a total fine amount of $5,000 (see here); Smith pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 44 substantive FCPA violations and was ordered to pay a total fine amount of $5,000 (see here); Garcia pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 46 substantive FCPA violations and was ordered to pay a total fine amount of $75,000 (see here); and Hall pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and 32 substantive FCPA violations and was ordered to pay a total fine amount of $150,000 (see here).

That leaves McLean and Uriarte. Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

Of further note from this enforcement action, Pemex filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court in Houston against Crawford, CEI, the two foreign officials, and twelve others in a bid to recover monies allegedly extracted from Pemex. In its complaint, Pemex sought several million dollars in both compensatory and punitive damages from Crawford and the other entities based upon the same conduct that was alleged in the DOJ enforcement actions. Pemex’s suit was based upon alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Pemex also asserted causes of actions based upon commercial bribery and common law fraud. Various of the defendants in the civil action sought relevant documents from Pemex and it was ultimately held in contempt for not producing the documents. For additional background on this case, see 643 F.Supp. 370; 826 F.2d 392.

Orthofix International Resolves Enforcement Action Based On The Conduct Of Its Mexican Subsidiary

Thursday, July 12th, 2012

Earlier this week, Orthofix International N.V. (“Orthofix”), a limited liability orthopedic medical device company formed under the law of Netherlands Antilles with administrative offices in Lewisville, Texas and common stock traded on Nasdaq, agreed to resolve DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions. The conduct at issue focuses on Promeca S.A. de C.V., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Orthofix headquartered in Mexico City. According to the SEC, “during the relevant time period, Promeca was subject to Orthofix’s control, including the implementation of internal controls at Promeca” and the “financial results of Promeca were a component of the consolidated financial statements included in Orthofix’s filings with the SEC.’

Total fines and penalties in the Orthofix enforcement action were approximately $7.4 million ($2.2 million via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement, and $5.2 million via a settled SEC civil complaint).

DOJ

The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information against Orthofix resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.

The specifics of the DOJ’s case against Orthofix are not known at this time as the Eastern District of Texas, where a criminal information has been filed, has a standing order that criminal informations remain sealed until a plea is entered in open court. Nevertheless, Orthofix did file the deferred prosecution agreement as an exhibit (see here) to its recent SEC filing. The DPA indicates that the information concerns one count of violating the FCPA’s internal control provisions.

The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement based on the following factors: “(a) following reports of bribery by [Promeca] employees … Orthofix made a timely and voluntary disclosure to the Department and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) about potential misconduct; (b) Orthofix conducted an investigation concerning bribery and related misconduct; (c) Orthofix reported its findings to the Department and the SEC; (d) the extent of the conduct; (e) Orthofix undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake further remedial measures, as may be necessary under [the DPA]; and (f) Orthofix agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Orthofix’s current and former employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries relating to violations of the FCPA.”

Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $2.22 – $4.44 million. The DPA states as follows. “Orthofix and the DOJ agree that this fine is appropriate given the nature and extent of Orthofix’s cooperation in this matter and the remediation undertaken by Orthofix.” Of note, the guidelines calculation indicate that “an individual within high-level personnel condoned or was willfully ignorant of the offense.” Although a compliance monitor was not required pursuant to the DPA, Orthofix did agree that it will report to the DOJ annually during the term of the DPA regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance measures required under the DPA.

As is customary in FCPA DPA’s, Orthofix agreed not to make any public statement contradicting its acceptance of responsibility for the conduct at issue in the DPA.

SEC

The SEC’s settled civil complaint (here) against Orthofix alleges, in summary fashion, as follows.

“This matter involves violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA by Orthofix, an orthopedic medical device company. From 2003 to 2010, [Promeca], repeatedly paid bribes totaling approximately $317,000 to Mexican officials in order to obtain and retain sales contracts from Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (“IMSS”) [here], the Mexican government-owned healthcare and social services institution. Promeca employees referred to these payments as ‘chocolates.’ These improper payments, falsely recorded on the company’s books as cash advances to Promeca executives or training and promotions expenses, generated approximately $8.7 million in gross revenues for Orthofix and resulted in illicit net profits of about $4.9 million.”

According to the SEC, Promeca sold Orthofix’s products to government and private hospitals in Mexico and “approximately 60% of Promeca’s revenues came from IMSS, the Mexican government-0wned medical care and social services provider.”

Under the heading “bribery scheme” the complaint alleges as follows.

“From at least 2003 to 2007, … Promeca, regularly paid bribes to IMSS hospital employees in the form of cash and/or gifts, in order to secure sales contracts from IMSS hospitals. The bribe amounts, referred to internally at Promeca as ‘chocolates,’ ranged from 5% to 10% of the collected sales for the hospital in question. In order to obtain cash for the illicit payments, Promeca executives wrote checks to themselves, which they justified as cash advances. They later submitted falsified receipts for imaginary expenses including meals and new car tires, which were accounted for in Promeca’s books and records. As the bribes increased, it became difficult for Promeca executives to invent new receipts to justify the advances. Eventually, the bribes became too large, forcing the Promeca executives to devise another justification methodology, and hence they began falsely accounting for the payments as promotional and training expenses. Because of the bribery scheme, Promeca’s training and promotional expenses were significantly over budget. In one instance, Orthofix launched an inquiry into these expenses, but did not control them. In 2008, IMSS began purchasing medical products under a new national tender system, where a special IMSS committee, rather than the individual hospitals, selected the winning bidder who would cover IMSS nationally. Promeca then established a new system of bribery to ensure that it was awarded the business under the national tender system. To achieve this, Promeca made payments to three front companies, which were controlled by certain IMSS officials. Promeca won the national tenders for 2008 and 2009 and paid the front companies 5% and 3%, respectively, of the collected sales from those tenders. The front companies concealed these bribes by submitting false invoices, characterizing them as training and other promotional expenses that Promeca never received. Promeca falsely recorded the bribes on its books as payments for training courses, meetings and congresses, and promotional costs. In addition, between 2003 and 2010, Promeca expended approximately $80,050 on gifts and travel packages, some of which were intended to corruptly influence IMSS employees in order to retain their business. The various gifts included vacation packages, televisions, laptops, appliances, and in one case, the lease of a Volkswagen Jetta. These payments were falsely accounted for in Promeca’s books and records as promotional and training expenses. In all, the improper payments, totaling about $317,000, generated approximately $8.7 million in gross revenues and resulted in illicit net profits to Orthofix of about $4.9 million.”

Under the heading, “Orthofix’s Remedial Measures to Prevent Corrupt Payments” the complaint states as follows.

“Prior to the discovery of the bribery schemes, Orthofix did not have an effective FCPA compliance policy or FCPA-related training. Although Orthofix disseminated some code of ethics and anti-bribery training to Promeca, the materials were only in English, and it was unlikely that Promeca employees understood them as most Promeca employees spoke minimal English. [For a recent FCPAmericas post on this issue, see here]. Additionally, even though Promeca’s training and promotional expenses, that included the improper payments, were often over budget, Orthofix did very little to investigate or diminish the excessive spending. Upon discovery of the bribe payments through a Promeca executive, Orthofix immediately self-reported the matter to the Commission staff, and conducted an internal investigation. Orthofix also implemented significant remedial measures. Specifically, it terminated the Promeca executives that orchestrated the bribery scheme, wound up Promeca’s operations, enhanced its overall FCPA compliance program with mandatory annual FCPA training for all employees and third-party agents, expanded internal audit functions, and implemented other internal control measures.”

Based on the above allegations, the SEC complaint charges violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions. The SEC complaint states as follows. “Orthofix’s subsidiary characterized their payments to IMSS as cash advances or training and promotional expenses even though those payments were used as bribes. Orthofix’s books and records did not reflect the true nature of those payments. Orthofix failed to implement adequate internal controls to prevent the bribery or to ensure that transaction were properly recorded. Orthofix failed to implement an FCPA compliance and training program commensurate with the extent of its international operations and particularly its ownership of Promeca, a subsidiary that had substantial sales to government-owned enterprises. Further, even though Orthofix knew that Promeca’s training and promotional expenses were often over budget, it did nothing to act on the red flag.”

As stated in the SEC’s release (here), Orthofix consented to a final judgment ordering it to pay $4,983,644 in disgorgement and more than $242,000 in prejudgment interest. As noted in the release, the final judgment would permanently enjoin the company from violating the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA and Orthofix also agreed to certain undertakings, including monitoring its FCPA compliance program and reporting back to the SEC for a two-year period.

In the release, Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated as follows. “Once bribery has been likened to a box of chocolates, you know a corruptive culture has permeated your business. Orthofix’s lax oversight allowed its subsidiary to illicitly spend more than $300,000 to sweeten the deals with Mexican officials.”

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the Orthofix enforcement action is that neither the DOJ or SEC charged the company with FCPA anti-bribery violations despite allegations that, given the enforcement agencies’ theories, have typically resulted in such violations.

Peter Spivack (Hogan Lovells – here) represented Orthofix.

Friday Roundup

Friday, April 27th, 2012

Coming attractions, monitor talk, LatinNode related individual sentences, just who are those “gestores,” scholarship of note, and Supreme Court quotables. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Coming Attractions

This prior post contained FCPA practitioner Homer Moyer’s discussion of industry sweeps. Industries that have been subjected to industry sweeps or are reportedly in the middle of industry sweeps include: oil and gas, pharmaceutical / medical devices, and financial services.

Add Hollywood film studies to the list.

Reuters reports (here) that the SEC “has sent letters of inquiry to at least five movie studios in the past two months, including News Corp’s 20th Century Fox, Disney, and DreamWorks Animation” that “ask for information about potential inappropriate payments and how the companies dealt with certain government officials in China.”

The New York Times (here) also reported on the letters of inquiry and stated that the SEC “has begun an investigation into whether some of Hollywood’s biggest movie studios have made illegal payments to officials in China to gain the right to film and show movies there.”

In other disclosure news, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkcell), Turkey’s only New York Stock Exchange listed company, recently disclosed in an SEC filing (here) as follows. “Some of [the countries the company operates in] also suffer from relatively high rates of fraud and corruption. For example, allegations have been made regarding improper payments relating to the operations of KCell, a mobile operator in Kazakhstan and 51% subsidiary of Fintur Holdings B.V., in which we hold a 41.45% stake, while TeliaSonera holds the remainder. The allegations were discussed by Turkcell’s Board of Directors, which requested an independent investigation of the allegations made. TeliaSonera initiated an independent investigation as agreed by the Fintur Board. The Turkcell Board has been informed that to date there has not been substantiated any such allegations and the Fintur Board informs us that it has completed its own investigation. Since no assurance can be given that there will not be further requests for investigation, we remain vigilant on this matter.”

In other disclosure news, in October 2006, the SEC informed the Bristol Myers Squibb Company that it had begun a formal inquiry into the activities of certain of the company’s German pharmaceutical subsidiaries and its employees and/or agents. The company previously disclosed that “the SEC’s inquiry encompasses matters formerly under investigation by the German prosecutor in Munich, Germany, which have since been resolved,” that the inquiry concerns potential violations of the FCPA and that “the company is cooperating with the SEC.” Yesterday, in a 10-Q filing, the company stated as follows. “In March, 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC. The subpoena, issued in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily relates to sales and marketing practices in various countries. The Company is cooperating with the government in its investigation of these matters.”

According to my tally, over the past two months, approximately 15 companies have newly disclosed, or been linked to, FCPA scrutiny. See here for the prior post “The Sun Rose, a Dog Barked, and a Company Disclosed FCPA Scrutiny.” (And no, Wal-Mart is not included in this list, the company disclosed its FCPA scrutiny in December 2011).

Hercules Offshore disclosed better news in its 10-Q filing yesterday. The company stated as follows. “On April 4, 2011, the Company received a subpoena issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting the delivery of certain documents to the SEC in connection with its investigation into possible violations of the securities laws, including possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in certain international jurisdictions where the Company conducts operations. The Company was also notified by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on April 5, 2011, that certain of the Company’s activities were under review by the DOJ. On April 24, 2012, the Company received a letter from the DOJ notifying the Company that the DOJ has closed its inquiry into the Company regarding possible violations of the FCPA and does not intend to pursue enforcement action against the Company. The DOJ indicated that its decision to close the matter was based on, among other factors, the thorough investigation conducted by the Company’s special counsel and the Company’s compliance program. The Company, through the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, intends to continue to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. At this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the SEC’s investigation, the expenses the Company will incur associated with this matter, or the impact on the price of the Company’s common stock or other securities as a result of this investigation.”

For the second straight day, I say kudos to the DOJ. Yet, I also ask on consecutive days – would anything really change with an FCPA compliance defense? As I note in “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense” (here) the DOJ already recognizes a de facto FCPA compliance defense albeit in opaque, inconsistent and unpredictable ways. Thus, an FCPA compliance defense accomplishes, among other things, the policy goal of removing factors relevant to corporate criminal liability from the opaque, inconsistent, and unpredictable world of DOJ decision making towards a more transparent, consistent, and predictable model best accomplished through a compliance defense amendment to the FCPA.

Monitor Talk

As discussed in this prior post, in March Biomet resolved an FCPA enforcement action involving $22.8 million in combined fines and penalties ($17.3 million via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement, and $5.5 million via a settled SEC civil complaint). Pursuant to the DPA, Biomet agreed to engage an independent compliance monitor “for a period of not less than 18 months” and to provide periodic reports to the DOJ regarding remediation and implementation of the enhanced compliance measures as described in an attachment to the DPA.

As evidence that investor concern regarding FCPA issues does not end on enforcement action day, during a recent earnings conference call, an analyst asked Biomet CEO Jeff Binder the following question.

“I guess just with regard to the DOJ settlement that was announced for the FCPA potential violations, I’m just wondering — I guess you’re going to have an 18-month monitoring period. So I assume that would only apply to your international business? And then maybe even within the international business, would that only apply to certain regions where there have been problems found? And then what sort of a pricing — sorry, not pricing, but cost impact do you expect from that monitoring? Is it something material or not?”

Binder responded as follows. “Yes. You’re correct that the monitorship will apply to our businesses outside the United States, but the monitors purview is broad outside the United States. The monitor has the ability to take a look at our businesses across the world. The monitor will do a risk assessment upfront. They’ll understand where our issues have been and they’ll take a look at our processes. They’ll develop that risk assessment. They’ll come up with a work plan that’s based on that risk assessment. And we’ll take it from there. We don’t expect that additional expenses for the monitor will be material to the business. DOJ and SEC require the candidates for the monitorship to submit budgets of the projected services for their work. And I’d just say that the amounts that were set forth in those budgets are not material, and we don’t anticipate significant internal expenses associated with the monitorship.”

LatiNode Individual Sentences

As noted in this DOJ release, in April 2009 LatiNode, a privately held Florida corporation, pleaded guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with improper payments in Honduras and Yemen and agreed to pay a $2 million criminal penalty. Thereafter, several of its former executives – Jorge Granados, Manuel Caceres, Manuel Salvoch, and Juan Vasquez were criminally charged and pleaded guility.

Earlier this week Caceres (former vice president of business development at LatiNode) and Vasquez (a former senior commercial executive at LatiNode) were sentenced. U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lenard (S.D. of Fl.) sentenced Caceres to 23 months followed by 1 year supervised release – the DOJ sought a 36 month sentence. U.S. District Court Judge Patrricia Seitz (S.D. of Fl.) sentenced Vasquez to 3 years probation, community service, home detention and monitoring and ordered him to pay a $7,500 criminal fine – the DOJ originally sought a 36 month sentence and recently stated that it “would not oppose a sentence for Vasquez that was less than the sentence for Caceres and Salvoch [who is yet to be sentenced].”

As noted in this prior post, in September 2011, Granados was sentenced to 46 months in prison.

“Gestores”

The New York Times article suggested that many of the Wal-Mart Mexican payments at issue were routed through Mexican gestores. Just who are those “gestores.”? I found this article from CBS of interest. The article states as follows. “A visit to any government office is likely to bring the sighting of a well-dressed man carrying reams of documents who will glide past the long lines, shake hands with the official behind the counter and get ushered into a backroom, where his affairs presumably get a fast-track service. The suspicion is these go-betweens funnel a portion of the fees they charge clients to corrupt officials to smooth the issuance of permits, approvals and other government stamps. In a country where laws on zoning rules, construction codes and building permits are vague or laxly enforced, the difference between opening a store quickly and having it held up for months may depend on using a gestor.”

Scholarship of Note

Pre-Wal-Mart, the FCPA conversation of the spring focused on charitable contributions in the context of the Wynn-Okada dispute. See here, here and here for the prior posts. Other posts have noted (see here) that, strange as it may sound, the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions are only implicated when something of value is provided, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the official in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions are not implicated when the thing of value is provided to a foreign government itself. Other prior posts (here and here) have discussed Dodd-Frank Act Section 1504′s Resource Extraction Disclosure Provisions.

Given my prior writings on these issues, I was pleased when Emory University School of Law student Francesca Pisano sent me the student comment “Anti-Corruption Law & Corporate Philanthropy: Rethinking the Regulations” (here) selected for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Emory Law Journal.

The abstract states as follows.

“When the 2010 earthquake hit Port-au-Prince, Haiti, U.S. companies donated over $146.8 million to the relief effort. Despite this impressive display of global engagement, commentators suggested that the US anti-corruption laws had discouraged corporations from greater involvement. Even with the laws in force, however, reports of corruption in the relief effort soon surfaced, derailing Haiti’s recovery. Foreign aid that feeds corruption will never achieve sustainable growth, but development efforts will similarly fail if U.S. anti-corruption laws discourage corporate philanthropy. This comment analyzes the application of two U.S. anti-corruption laws, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the Dodd-Frank Section 1504, to international corporate charity. It shows how the FCPA’s ambiguous nature has the unfortunate effect of being both over- and under-inclusive, discouraging bona fide charity while at the same time failing to capture corrupt donations. The recently-enacted Dodd-Frank Section 1504 has great potential, but the SEC’s proposed rules have created a loophole to allow corruption to continue if hidden in corporate charity. This comment proposes a modification to FCPA enforcement: creating a Safe Harbor Option. This will offer businesses the opportunity to “buy” a rebuttable presumption of legitimacy for their charitable donations by publically disclosing the payments, projects, and recipients of their philanthropy. Granting a presumption of legitimacy to disclosed donations will ameliorate many of the over-inclusive aspects of the FCPA. The increased disclosure will allow the public to monitor corporate charity and question suspicious gifts, ameliorating the under-inclusive aspects of FCPA enforcement. This comment also argues that Section 1504 should be defined expansively to prevent charity from being used to circumvent the congressional goals of increasing transparency and combating corruption. If properly defined, Section 1504 is an excellent example of regulation through disclosure and transparency, rather than prohibitions.”

Supreme Court Quotable

This recent post discussed non-FCPA caselaw that touched upon issues relevant to the recent “foreign official” challenges. Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion (here) in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority concerning the scope of the Torture Victim Protection Act. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor held that the term “individual” in the TVPA encompasses only natural persons, and thus the law does not impose liability against corporatons. In her opinion, Justice Sotomayor’s stated, among other things, as follows.

“Congress remains free, as always, to give the word [individual] a broader or different meaning. But before we will assume it has done so, there must be some indication Congress intended such a result.”

“We add only that Congress appeared well aware of the limited nature of the cause of action it established in the Act.”

“The text of the TVPA convinces us that Congress did not extend liability to organizations, sovereign or not. There are no doubt valid arguments for such an extension. But Congress has seen fit to proceed in more modest steps in the Act, and it is not the province of this Branch to do otherwise.”

*****

I went to Walmart last night. After completing my purchase and before exiting the store, I stopped, looked around, and thought, wow, what a week!

A good weekend to all.

Analyzing Wal-Mart

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

This prior post discussed the New York Times lengthy Wal-Mart investigative piece published over the weekend.

This post analyzes the likely issues and the road ahead.

The Times article is both unremarkable and remarkable at the same time.

The unremarkable portion of the Times article is that a foreign subsidiary of a multi-national company operating in a FCPA high-risk jurisdiction allegedly made payments to “foreign officials” to facilitate or grease the issuance of certain licenses or permits. According to the Times, Wal-Mart’s subsidiary in Mexico “had taken steps to conceal [the payments] from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.” and Wal-Mart Mexico’s chief auditor altered reports sent to Bentonville discussing various problematic payments. In short, there is nothing in the Times report to suggest that Wal-Mart’s board or top executives (with the exception of Eduardo Castro-Wright – discussed below in more detail) knew of or authorized the problematic payments.

By unremarkable I do not mean to suggest that such payments will not attract DOJ and SEC scrutiny under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. They surely will, even if Congress likely intended to exclude such payments from the FCPA’s reach and even if the only case law of precedent on the issue is muddled. (Both issues were discussed in the prior post).

Even if the Mexican payments do not meet the elements of an FCPA anti-bribery violation, the enforcement agencies are likely to assert that such payments violate of the FCPA books and records and internal control provisions. For instance, the Times article suggests that the Mexican payments were routed through Mexican gestores who were told to submit invoices full of secret code words. The enforcement agencies frequently take the position that payments recorded on a subsidiary’s books and records become the parent company issuer’s problem on the theory that such subsidiary books and records are consolidated with the issuers for purposes of financial reporting.

The enforcement agencies also expect that a parent company implement effective internal controls throughout its organization, including foreign subsidiaries. On this issue, one of the most significant issues is likely to be, as the Times article details, that in 2003 Wal-Mart engaged Kroll Inc. on an apparent unrelated issue in which Kroll concluded that Wal-Mart Mexico “executives had failed to enforce their own anticorruption policies, [and] ignored certain internal audits that raised red flags.” According to the Times article, “Wal-Mart then asked Kroll to evaluate Wal-Mart de Mexico’s internal audit and antifraud units” and that “Kroll wrote another report that branded the units ‘ineffective.’”

An issue the enforcement agencies are likely to explore is how Wal-Mart reacted to the 2003 Kroll audit and if it didn’t react why not? The same general issue is present in Avon’s current FCPA scrutiny. As noted in this February Wall Street Journal article, a grand jury is probing how certain U.S. executives reacted to a 2005 internal audit by the company that concluded Avon employees in China may have been bribing officials in violation of the FCPA. As in Avon, an issue in the Wal-Mart matter, including as to individual executives who may not have participated in or authorized any Mexican payments, will likely be willful blindness as to the Mexican audit.

The remarkable aspects of the Times investigation include the conduct (or lack thereof) of Wal-Mart and its top executives upon learning of problematic conduct in its Mexican subsidiary. Even in 2005 and continuing today, most business leaders, audit committees, and boards tend to overreact to FCPA issues and often reflexibly launch broad internal investigations.

However, the payment issues at Wal-Mart Mexico apparently resulted in exactly the opposite at Wal-Mart’s corporate headquarters. Wal-Mart’s conduct will not be viewed favorably by the enforcement agencies.

For instance, under the DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (here) a factor the DOJ will consider in arriving at its enforcement decision include ”the corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents.” While the FCPA does not contain any affirmative disclosure obligation, most companies the size and stature of Wal-Mart tend to disclose conduct that could implicate the FCPA, particularly given the SEC’s position that all payments in violation of the FCPA are qualitatively material, even if not quantitatively material.

Lacking such a voluntarly disclosure, a company should, at the very least, thoroughly investigate the alleged wrongdoing and implement effective remedial measures, including by disciplining and terminating culpable employees. Once again, the Principles of Prosecution state that ”the corporation’s remedial actions, including any efforts to implement an effective corporate compliance program or to improve an existing one, to replace responsible management, to discipline or terminate wrongdoers, to pay restitution, and to cooperate with the relevant government agencies” is a factor the DOJ will consider in arriving at its enforcement decision. As to this factor, the relevant comment in the Principles of Prosecution states as follows. “In determining whether or not to prosecute a corporation, the government may consider whether the corporation has taken meaningful remedial measures. A corporation’s response to misconduct says much about its willingness to ensure that such misconduct does not recur. Thus, corporations that fully recognize the seriousness of their misconduct and accept responsibility for it should be taking steps to implement the personnel, operational, and organizational changes necessary to establish an awareness among employees that criminal conduct will not be tolerated. Among the factors prosecutors should consider and weigh are whether the corporation appropriately disciplined wrongdoers, once those employees are identified by the corporation as culpable for the misconduct.”

On this issue, another remarkable aspect of the Times investigation is how Eduardo Castro-Wright (at the critical time period the CEO of Wal-Mart Mexico) was known by others at Wal-Mart to be involved in the Mexican payments, but was nevertheless continuously thereafter promoted by Wal-Mart. For instance, as noted in this January 7, 2005 release, Wal-Mart announced that “Eduardo Castro-Wright, currently president and chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Mexico, will become executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Wal-Mart Stores Division in the United States.” In the release, Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke stated as follows. “Eduardo is a proven leader who has helped Wal-Mart Mexico achieve outstanding results. His experience, perspective and management skills will be a valuable addition to our division here in the United States.” In this June 2010 release, the company announced that “Vice Chairman Eduardo Castro-Wright has been appointed President and CEO of Global.com and Global Sourcing.” Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke stated as follows. “Eduardo has made extraordinary contributions to Walmart U.S. over the past five years, and many contributions are still to come. He is a visionary thinker who has strengthened our overall business and built a foundation that positions us well for the future.”

As to other Wal-Mart executives, while there is no suggestion at this point that they knew of or authorized the Mexican conduct while it was occurring, their conduct since learning of the misconduct is likely to attract regulatory scrutiny. Such scrutiny is likely to include certification issues under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) as well as other executive statements to the market since 2005 when they became aware of the payments at issue. You can bet that the SEC in particular will be analyzing every SEC filing, specifically the Management Discussion & Analysis section, and all other statements to the market since 2005 by executives regarding Wal-Mart Mexico.

As to SOX certification issues, as noted in this prior post, in 2011 the SEC charged Paul Jennings, the former CEO and CFO of Innospec. Jennings was charged in connection with the payments, but also charged with violating Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2 by making false statements to accountants and violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 by signing false personal certifications required by SOX that were attached to annual and quarterly Innospec public filings. As to these charges, the SEC alleged as follows. “From 2004 to February 2009, Jennings signed annual certifications that were provided to auditors where he falsely stated that he complied with Innospec’s Code of Ethics incorporating the company’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act policy, and that he was unaware of any violations of the Code of Ethics by anyone else. [...] Jennings also signed annual and quarterly personal certifications pursuant to SOX in which Jennings made false certifications concerning the company’s books and records and internal controls. Jennings also signed false management certifications to Innospec’s auditors indicating that the books and records were accurate and that Innospec had appropriate internal controls.” Then SEC FCPA Unit Chief, Cheryl Scarboro stated as follows: “we will vigorously hold accountable those who approve such bribery and who sign false SOX certifications and other documents to cover up the wrongdoing.”

Also perhaps relevant is the 2009 SEC FCPA enforcement action against Nature’s Sunshine Products (“NSP”) including its executives Douglas Faggioli (President and Chief Executive Officer of NSP and a member of its board of directors during the relevant time period) and Craig Huff (the company’s CFO). The SEC complaint did not allege that these executives knew of or participated in the improper payments at issue, but the SEC nevertheless charged the executives on a control person theory of liability. The complaint charged that Faggioli and Huff, as “control persons” of NSP, violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions and generally alleged that both Faggioli and Huff had “supervisory responsibilities” over NSP’s senior management and policies, yet as “control persons,” “failed to make and keep books, records, and accounts, which in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflected the transactions of NSP” and failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls.

Not only will the DOJ and SEC likely be examining the conduct of Wal-Mart executives, but so too will plaintiff law firms representing shareholders who will likely scour Wal-Mart’s SEC filings and other statements to the market in bringing derivative claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty and potential Section 10(b) claims based on material omissions concerning Wal-Mart Mexico. On this score, shareholders are likely to allege, among other things, that Wal-Mart’s officers and directors demonstrated conscious disregard for fiduciary duties by failing to act diligently in the face of known facts suggesting a duty to act.

Whether remarkable or unremarkable, the information revealed in the Times article is likely to be a long and costly exercise for Wal-Mart and certain of its executives. Wal-Mart’s statement over the weekend indicated that it already is conducting a world-wide review of its operations and such “where else” investigations frequently uncover additional problematic conduct. Among other things, the enforcement agencies are likely to take a keen interest in how Wal-Mart obtained foreign licenses or permits in other FCPA high-risk jurisdictions around the world. This world-wide review will take time and for this reason FCPA scrutiny of the type that Wal-Mart is currently under is likely to last 2-4 years.

Wal-Mart’s FCPA Scrutiny Grows

Saturday, April 21st, 2012

In December 2011, Wal-Mart made the following generic disclosure in a 10-K filing.

“During fiscal 2012, the Company began conducting a voluntary internal review of its policies, procedures and internal controls pertaining to its global anti-corruption compliance program. As a result of information obtained during that review and from other sources, the Company has begun an internal investigation into whether certain matters, including permitting, licensing and inspections, were in compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company has engaged outside counsel and other advisors to assist in the review of these matters and has implemented, and is continuing to implement, appropriate remedial measures. The Company has voluntarily disclosed its internal investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, we do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.”

Today, the New York Times ran a major story (here) titled “Vast Mexico Bribery Case Hushed Up by Wal-Mart After Top-Level Struggle” that relates to Wal-Mart’s prior disclosure. Was Wal-Mart’s disclosure to the DOJ, as stated in its December 10-K filing “voluntary”? According to the Times article, “in December, after learning of The Times’s reporting in Mexico, Wal-Mart informed the Justice Department that it had begun an internal investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” (emphasis added).

The conduct at issue in the Times article relates to Wal-Mart’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico (“Wal-Mart Mexico), and suggests that Wal-Mart Mexico “orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance” and that the entity “paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner” of Mexico.

According to the article, in 2005, “Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.” According to the Times, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former FBI agent, “recommended that Wal-Mart expand the investigation” but its own examination found that ”Wal-Mart’s leaders shut it down.” The article states that “in one meeting where the bribery case was discussed, H. Lee Scott Jr., then Wal-Mart’s chief executive, rebuked internal investigators for being overly aggressive.”

The Times examination included more than 15 hours of interviews with Sergio Cicero Zapata a former executive who resigned from Wal-Mart Mexico in 2004 after nearly a decade in the company’s real estate department. The article states as follows. “In the interviews, Mr. Cicero recounted how he had helped organize years of payoffs. He described personally dispatching two trusted outside lawyers to deliver envelopes of cash to government officials. They targeted mayors and city council members, obscure urban planners, low-level bureaucrats who issued permits — anyone with the power to thwart Wal-Mart’s growth. The bribes, he said, bought zoning approvals, reductions in environmental impact fees and the allegiance of neighborhood leaders.”

Elsewhere, the Times article states as follows. “The idea, [Cicero] said, was to build hundreds of new stores so fast that competitors would not have time to react. Bribes, he explained, accelerated growth. They got zoning maps changed. They made environmental objections vanish. Permits that typically took months to process magically materialized in days. ‘What we were buying was time,’ he said. ” The article states that Cicero’s “allegations were all the more startling because he implicated himself” and ”helped funnel bribes through trusted fixers, known as ‘gestores.’”

The times article contains several internal documents including Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s 2005 ”investigative work plan” that called for tracing all payments to anyone who helped Wal-Mart Mexico obtain permits for the previous five years. The Times article states as follows. “In short, Willkie Farr recommended the kind of independent, spare-no-expense investigation major corporations routinely undertake when confronted with allegations of serious wrongdoing by top executives. Wal-Mart’s leaders rejected this approach. Instead, records show, they decided Wal-Mart’s lawyers would supervise a far more limited ‘preliminary inquiry’ by in-house investigators.”

According to the Times article, in 2006, Wal-Mart again considered a full investigation of the conduct in Mexico, but that in the end, the company largely delegated responsibility for the investigation to Wal-Mart Mexico. The Times article quotes a person with knowledge of the thinking of Wal-Mart executives as follows. “It’s a Mexican issue; it’s better to let it be a Mexican response.”

The Times article contains a detailed statement by Wal-Mart. Among other things, the Wal-Mart statement notes that “many of the alleged activities in the New York Times article are more than six years old” and that “in a large global enterprise such as Walmart, sometimes issues arise despite our best efforts and intentions.” The statement continues as follows. ”When they do, we take them seriously and act quickly to understand what happened. We take action and work to implement changes so the issue doesn’t happen again. That’s what we’re doing today.”

See here for Wal-Mart’s video response to the New York Times article.

*****

The New York Times article paints a troubling picture for Wal-Mart that will likely occupy the company for years to come. In addition to the Mexico conduct, the DOJ and SEC will surely be interested in the response (or lack thereof) by company executives in Arkansas as well as the results of Wal-Mart’s worldwide review of its operations.

The DOJ and SEC frequently bring FCPA enforcement actions premised on payments to obtain foreign licenses, permits and the like. For instance see here (and embedded posts therein) for the numerous Panalpina related enforcement actions in 2010. See here at pages 972-975 for a listing of such cases 2007-2009.

This despite the following relevant history.

The FCPA’s original definition of “foreign official” was as follows. “… any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of such government or department, agency or instrumentality. Such terms do not include any employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof whose duties are essentially ministerial or clerical.”

This last sentence was the FCPA’s original (albeit indirect) facilitating payment or grease exception. The relevant House Report states in pertinent part as follows: “… a gratuity paid to a customs official to speed the processing of a customs document would not be reached by this bill. Nor would it reach payments made to secure permits, licenses, or the expeditious performance of similar duties of an essentially ministerial or clerical nature which must be performed in any event.”

When Congress amended the FCPA in 1988 it, among other things, amended the definition of foreign official by removing this indirect facilitating payment exception from the “foreign official” definition by creating a stand-alone facilitating payment exception currently found in the statute.

The relevant House Report indicates that Congress did not seek to disturb Congress’s original intent. “The policy adopted by Congress in 1977 remains valid, in terms of both U.S. law enforcement and foreign relations considerations. Any prohibition under U.S. law against this type of petty corruption would be exceedingly difficult to enforce, not only by U.S. prosecutors but by company officials themselves. Thus while such payments should not be condoned, they may appropriately be excluded from the reach of the FCPA. U.S. enforcement resources should be devoted to activities have much greater impact on foreign policy.”

Also relevant is the holding of U.S. v. Kay, the only appellate court decision to directly address payments outside the context of directly securing a foreign government contract. In Kay, the 5th Circuit said that such payments “could” violate the FCPA, but that “there are bound to be circumstances” in which such payments merely increase the profitability of an existing profitable company and thus, presumably does not assist the payer in obtaining or retaining business. The court specifically stated as follows. “If the government is correct that anytime operating costs are reduced the beneficiary of such advantage is assisted in getting or keeping business, the FCPA’s language that expresses the necessary element of assisting in obtaining or retaining business would be unnecessary, and thus surplusage – a conclusion that we are forbidden to reach.”