Voluntary Disclosure « FCPA Professor

Archive for the ‘Voluntary Disclosure’ Category

A Wide-Ranging Interview

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

The FCPA Report is an online publication that contains articles on a variety of FCPA topics to assist lawyers in relevant practice areas, in-house counsel, and risk and compliance managers stay ahead of the curve. It launched this June and features thematic sourced and researched by primarily lawyers, as well as contributed articles by experts in the field, interviews with leading figures, and reports on important developments. It is available to subscribers and trial subscribers at www.fcpareport.com.

I was pleased to do a telephone interview with the FCPA Report in mid-August. Today’s post sends you to the wide-ranging Q&A previously published, in two parts, in the FCPA Report and linked to here with permission.

Topics covered in the Q&A include the following: statute of limitations, judicial scrutiny, the duration of FCPA scrutiny, voluntary disclosure, Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny, facilitation payments, obtain or retain business, foreign official, corporate fines, victims issues, a private right of action, FCPA Inc. and the revolving door, the three buckets of FCPA financial exposure and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act reform.

The U.K. Ministry Of Justice Should Say No To DPAs In The Bribery Act Context

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

As noted in this prior post, the U.K. Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) has a consultation process open concerning its proposal to adopt deferred prosecution agreements. Below is the text of my letter to the MoJ urging it to say no to DPAs in the Bribery Act context. You too can make your voice heard on this issue before August 9th (see here for more information).

*****

This letter responds to the Ministry of Justice’s (“MoJ”) request for consultation regarding deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) (Consultation Paper CP9/2012).

While the MoJ’s DPA proposal concerns a variety of economic crimes, it is probable that a significant percentage of DPAs, if implemented, will be used to resolve Bribery Act enforcement actions as has happened in the U.S. where a significant percentage of DPAs and related nonprosecution agreements (NPAs) have been used to resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement actions. Given that my primary area of expertise is the FCPA and related anti-corruption laws and initiatives including the Bribery Act, I confine my comments to potential application of DPAs to resolve Bribery Act prosecutions.

To begin, I applaud the MoJ for its wholesale rejection of non-prosecution agreements (“NPAs”) to resolve allegations of corporate criminal activity. Like the MoJ, I agree that such resolution vehicles, which are a prominent feature of the U.S. criminal justice system including in FCPA enforcement actions, are not suitable given the lack of transparency in such agreements including the lack of judicial oversight. I can only hope that the U.S. Department of Justice sees the wisdom of your decision and likewise abolishes such agreements as I have advocated.

I also applaud the MoJ for insisting, should there be DPAs in the U.K., “that there should be judicial involvement from an early stage whereby the proposed DPA is considered at a preliminary hearing before it returns for final judicial approval.” As noted by the MoJ’s consultation paper, U.S. style DPAs lack such a feature.

I am concerned however that in its consultation paper the MoJ relies upon several unfounded assertions when discussing use of DPAs in the U.S. For instance, the consultation paper asserts, as if a fact, that such vehicles have been “successfully adopted” in the U.S. and that such vehicles “support an existing culture of self-reporting of serious economic crimes.”

If “successfully adopted” means that such vehicles has resulted in an increase in enforcement actions, then yes I agree with the MoJ’s statement. After all, it is not surprising that the more options an enforcement agency has (beyond the traditional two options of prosecuting and not prosecuting) the more enforcement actions that will result. Yet, I submit that a factor in determining success ought to be quality of the enforcement action and whether an enforcement agency theory of prosecution, if subjected to judicial scrutiny and an adversarial proceeding, can meet its high burden of proof. This element of “success” is missing from U.S. style resolution vehicles replaced with a system whereby entering into such a resolution vehicle is often merely a cost/benefit exercise for a company often divorced from the law and relevant facts. I’ve called this dynamic “the façade of enforcement” and I urge the MoJ to place greater importance on quality, not quantity, in assessing “success.”

Moreover, the MoJ asserts, as if fact, that such resolution vehicles “support an existing culture of self-reporting of serious economic crimes” in the U.S. While empirical data is lacking as to the frequency of voluntary disclosures of improper conduct during this era of frequent U.S. use of NPAs and DPAs, anecdotal evidence and comments from various experts suggest that a high percentage of corporate conduct that could implicate criminal laws is not reported to the enforcement agencies. I submit that one factor driving this dynamic is that companies and its counsel have come to realize that the enforcement agency will not be diligent and complete in its application of law to facts and its consideration of mitigating facts because the enforcement agency will never have to prove its enforcement theory to anyone other than itself. In short, U.S. alternative resolution vehicles ought not be viewed as a successful or desirable export.

Regardless of the divergent views one may have as to the “success” of alternative resolution vehicles in the U.S. and whether such vehicles support a culture of self-reporting, my primary concern with the U.K. looking to the U.S. for support in considering DPAs is the material differences between U.K. and U.S. corporate criminal liability, including in the bribery context.

Under the U.S. principle of respondeat superior a business organization can face criminal liability based on the acts of any employee or agent to the extent the individual’s conduct was in the scope of their duties and was intended to benefit, at least in part, the organization. U.S. adoption of alternative resolution vehicles largely developed out of a sense of injustice when this principle was applied to organizations based on isolated conduct or conduct that occurred despite the organization’s good faith compliance efforts.

Unlike the ease in which a business organization can be subject to criminal liability under U.S. law, as the consultation paper itself notes, organization criminal liability under U.K. law is very difficult to prove and “depends on establishing that the ‘directing mind and will’ of an organization was at fault.” In short, U.S. adoption of DPAs was largely a function of general circumstances not present under U.K. law.

Moreover, U.S. use of alternative resolution vehicles in the FCPA context implicates specific circumstances not present in the Bribery Act. As the consultation paper itself notes, the Bribery Act is a unique law in that it already provides in Section 7 a unique offense to hold organizations liable that fail to adopt adequate procedures to prevent bribery. Although many, including myself, have called for the FCPA to be amended to include such a compliance defense, the FCPA currently does not contain such an exception.

In conclusion, I pose the following questions the MoJ should consider during its consultation process. Why does a law with an adequate procedures defense require the third option of a deferred prosecution agreement (the first two options being prosecute vs. not prosecute)? If a corporate has adequate procedures, but an isolated act of bribery nevertheless occurs within its organization, the corporate presumably would not face prosecution under the Bribery Act. This seems like a just and reasonable result and there is no need for a third option in such a case. On the other hand, if a corporate does not have adequate procedures (thus demonstrating a lack of commitment to anti-bribery compliance) and an act of bribery occurs within its organization, it presumably would face prosecution under the Bribery Act. This seems like a just and reasonable result. Does a third option really need to be created for corporates who do not implement adequate procedures? I submit the answer is no and urge the MoJ to reject use of DPAs in the Bribery Act context.

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, July 6th, 2012

Out with the tide, a former DOJ Fraud Section Chief speaks on voluntary disclosure, guidance issues, will candy fall from the pinata, schooled in the FCPA, a Section 1504 development, and “Minegolia.”

Tidewater Derivative Complaint Dismissed

As highlighted in this previous post, in November 2010 Tidewater Inc. was one of several companies to resolve a ”CustomsGate” case. The conduct at issue focused on Azeri tax officials and Nigerian temporary import permits and the company resolved DOJ and SEC enforcement actions by agreeing to pay $15.7 million in fines and penalties.

As if on cue in this new era of FCPA enforcement, along came the private plaintiff firms representing shareholders who filed a derivative complaint alleging that officers and members of the Board of Directors of Tidewater breached their fiduciary duties “in that they: (1) knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that employees, representatives, agents and/or contractors were paying, had paid and/or had offered to pay bribes to Azerbaijani and Nigerian government officials to obtain favorable treatment for Tidewater; (2) caused Tidewater to pay bribes and to disguise the bribe payments as legitimate expenses in Tidewater’s books and financial disclosures; and (3) failed to maintain adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with the FCPA and Exchange Act.”

Earlier this week, the case was swept out with the tide as U.S. District Court Judge Jane Triche Milazzo dismissed the complaint – see here for the decision. In short, Judge Milazzo found that “Plaintiff did not adequately plead demand futility.” Judge Milazzo utilized various tests in reaching her decision such as director interest and independence and whether the board could impartially consider the merits of the demand without being influenced by improper considerations.

As to interest, Judge Milazzo stated as follows.

“This Court finds that the Complaint is completely devoid of any allegations of an interested director. There is no allegation that any director appeared on both sides of a transaction or expected to derive a personal financial benefit from it. Nowhere in the Complaint can it be found that any one of the directors, much the less a majority of them, benefitted from the bribes themselves, benefitted from failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls, benefitted from enforcing policies and programs designed to prevent violations, benefitted from improperly recorded payment of bribes in Tidewater’s books and records or benefitted from inadequately training their employees, agents, representatives and/or contractors with respect to compliance with the FCPA.”

As to alleged director participation or knowledge , Judge Milazzo stated that the ”Complaint falls woefully short of pleading facts that are sufficient to show that there was any knowledge or conscious disregard on behalf of the directors.”

As to whether the directors exhibited bad faith sufficient to overcome business judgment rule presumptions, Judge Milazzo stated as follows. “While Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to show that Tidewater was evidently violating both the FCPA and the Exchange Act, nowhere in the Complaint do Plaintiff’s allegations meet the specificity to show that the Individual Defendants were acting with the intent to violate these laws. ‘[T]he mere fact that a violation occurred does not demonstrate that the board acted in bad faith. Alleging that ‘upon information and belief’ the ‘Headquarters’ made the decision to avoid tax assessments in violation of the FCPA falls woefully short of the pleading requirements. Nowhere can this Court find who made this decision, how this decision was made or that there was an intent to violate any law. Moreover, the Court finds it significant that Tidewater’s directors voted and voluntarily initiated an FCPA investigation and advised the federal government of their violations before the government even suspected any violations.”

Tyrell on Voluntary Disclosure

You know the talking points. The DOJ wants companies to voluntarily disclose, not ifs, ands or buts about it. It’s interesting though how this becomes less of a black and white issues when individuals leave the DOJ.

In this recent Q&A in The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Steven Tyrell (a former DOJ Fraud Section Chief and current partner at Weil Gotshal – here) was asked the following question – “what is the role of voluntary reporting in establishing a good relationship with the regulatory and enforcement authorities?”

He stated as follows.

“In the first instance, if a company has a legal obligation to disclose – for example, government contractors are obliged to disclose fraud – then the analysis begins and ends there. Assuming there is no legal obligation that compels disclosure or no imminent threat of disclosure by an outside party, such as a newspaper, then I typically advise clients to take credible allegations of wrongdoing seriously, look into those allegations in a manner that is appropriate under the circumstances, and assess the nature and extent of the company’s exposure and the pros and cons of disclosure. Then, and only then, should a disclosure be made if it is in the best interest of the company – or, for a public company, if the securities laws require it. Of course, it often will not be in a company’s best interest to disclose if, for example, the allegations prove not to be credible or if it is unclear whether the conduct even amounts to a violation of law. Under those circumstances, a disclosure could unnecessarily embroil the company in a lengthy and costly government investigation and result in other repercussions such as triggering civil litigation and harm to a company’s reputation that could otherwise be avoided. It’s a challenging calculus. I can tell you from past experience that there are companies that have strong reputations for compliance with regulators and others that do not. However, the fact that a company doesn’t disclose a problem that ultimately comes to DOJ’s attention is not necessarily going to damage the company’s credibility with DOJ. Regulators recognize that not every allegation should be of interest to them – and, frankly, having counsel that knows when they’ll be interested and when they won’t is really important.”

Guidance Issues

As highlighted in this previous post, soon after Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer announced in November 2011 that FCPA guidance would be forthcoming in 2012, Senator Grassley sought guidance on the guidance and asked Attorney General Holder several follow-up questions for the record. For a copy of Holder’s responses, see here.

In this previous post, among others, I commented that non-binding DOJ guidance is not the best way to accomplish real and meaningful FCPA reform.

Thus, I completely agree with former DOJ Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger and former DOJ attorney and Senate counsel Matthew Miner (both currently at White & Case, see here and here) when they state as follows in this article.

“The fact that the Justice Department recognizes the need for such guidance underscores the existence of blurry lines and fuzzy standards surrounding the FCPA. US businesses trying to compete successfully in the international commercial arena deserve better. Justice Department ‘guidance’ is neither enough, nor is it properly the role of prosecutors to be definitive interpreters of ambiguities in criminal laws. Congress writes the laws and, as the US Supreme Court has firmly established, has a responsibility to set clear standards for what is permissible and what is not. It should not stand aside in deference to the Justice Department’s plan to craft guidance, especially when that guidance will have no effect in court.”

Yara Fertilizer

It has been said before that anytime a foreign company is the subject of a corruption probe, the U.S. enforcement agencies are like children at a birthday party waiting for some candy to fall from the pinata. Think what you will of the analogy.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported (here) that “Norwegian fertilizer producer Yara International ASA’s chief executive, Jorgen Ole Haslestad, apologized Friday to the company’s employees after an investigation uncovered millions of dollars in ‘unacceptable’ payments in India and Switzerland, as well as ‘unacceptable offers of payments’ in Libya.” According to the article, the “unacceptable offers of payments” in Libya involve “a consultant related to the establishment of the company Libyan Norwegian Fertilizer Co., or Lifeco, in Libya, a joint venture with the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the Libyan Investment Authority.”

As noted on the company’s website here, Yara ”has a sponsored Level 1 ADR program for American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), which represent ownership in shares of foreign (non-US) companies that trade on US financial markets.” Whether foreign companies, including those with Level 1 ADR’s can become subject to the FCPA, see this excellent piece “When Does an ADR Program Give U.S. Authorities FCPA Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Issuer?”

Time will tell if the candy falls.

Checking in on Wynn Resorts

Previous posts here, here and here focused on the Wynn-Okada dispute including Wynn’s $135 million charitable contribution to the University of Macau. On that topic, this recent Wall Street Journal article focused on the “web of political ties” between a Macau company paid by Wynn and government officials. Regarding Wynn’s FCPA compliance in expanding in Macau, company CEO Steve Wynn stated as follows. “This whole business of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—we were schooled in this.”

Final grade is pending.

Section 1504 Development

Several prior posts, see here for example, discussed Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, the so-called Resource Extraction Disclosure Provisions and the long delay in SEC final rules. As noted in this Corruption Current post by Samuel Rubenfeld, the SEC recently announced here that on August 22nd, “the Commission will consider whether to adopt rules regarding disclosure and reporting obligations with respect to payments to governments made by resource extraction issuers to implement the requirements of Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“Minegolia”

There has been only one FCPA enforcement concerning, at least in part, business conduct in Mongolia (see here for the 2009 UTStarcom action). This is hardly surprising, as few companies subject to the FCPA have traditionally engaged in business in the country. However, as noted in this recent Al Jazerra article, Mongolia or “Minegolia” as the country is sometimes called, “is undergoing a rapid transformation, due to its incredible resource wealth in minerals such as coal, copper, and gold.” At the same time, the article notes that “Transparency International placed Mongolia 120th out of 183 nations on its corruption perception index” and that “90 percent of Mongolians believe politicians are benefitting from ‘special arrangements’ with foreign enterprises over mining rights.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Oxford Publishing Resolves U.K. SFO / World Bank Actions

Wednesday, July 4th, 2012

Last July, the U.K. publisher resolving an enforcement action concerning textbook and other sales in East Africa was Macmillian Publishing (see here for the prior post). This July, it is Oxford Publishing Limited (OPL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford University Press (OUP).

Yesterday the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here) an enforcement action against OPL regarding “unlawful conduct related to subsidiaries incorporated in Tanzania and Kenya.” The conduct at issue included “participating in public tenders for contracts to supply governments with text books and other educational materials for the school curricula.”

Pursuant to a civil recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, OPL agreed to pay £1,895,435.

Under the heading “self referral” the SFO release states as follows.

“In 2011, OUP became aware of the possibility of irregular tendering practices involving its education business in East Africa. OUP acted immediately to investigate the matter, instructing independent lawyers and forensic accountants to undertake a detailed investigation. As a result of the investigation, in November 2011 OUP voluntarily reported certain concerns in relation to contracts arising from a number of tenders which its Kenyan and Tanzanian subsidiaries … entered into between the years 2007 and 2010. [...] The investigation was thorough – involving numerous interviews and an extensive review of documents and electronic data – and completed to the satisfaction of the SFO. The substantial product of those investigations was presented to the SFO [...] The product of that work led the SFO … to believe that [OPL subsidiaries] had offered and made payments, directly and through agents, intended to induce the recipients to award competitive tenders and/or publishing contracts for schoolbooks.”

The SFO release states that “a number of relevant features … led to the decision to pursue a civil recovery order in place of a criminal prosecution.” Those factors include the following: “OUP has conducted itself in a manner which fully meets the criteria set out in the SFO guidance on self reporting matters of overseas corruption” and “there is no evidence of Board level (or the equivalent) knowledge or connivance within OUP in relation to the business practices which led to the case being referred to the SFO.” The SFO release also states as follows. “The products supplied were of a good standard and provided at ‘open market’ values. This means that the jurisdictions involved have not been victims as a result of overpaying for the goods or as a result being supplied goods which were unsuitable or not required.”

The SFO release further states as follows.

“Since the occurrence of the conduct that is the subject matter of the civil recovery order, OUP has introduced enhanced compliance procedures intended to significantly reduce the risk of recurrence of such conduct within OUP. These procedures will be subject to review by a monitor who will report to the Director of the SFO within twelve months …”.

As noted in the SEC release, OUP also “unilaterally offered to contribute £2,000,000 to not-for-profit organisations for teacher training and other educational purposes in sub-Saharan Africa. This was a reflection of the seriousness with which OUP views the course of events that were subject to the investigation and a wish to acknowledge that the conduct of [its subsidiaries] fell short of that expected within its wider organisation.” As to this contribution, the SFO releases states that it “decided that the offer should not be included in the terms of the court order as the SFO considers it is not its function to become involved in voluntary payments of this kind.”

In the release, SFO Director David Green states as follows. “This settlement demonstrates that there are, in appropriate cases, clear and sensible solutions available to those who self report issues of this kind to the authorities. The use of Civil Recovery powers has been exercised in accordance with the Attorney General’s guidelines. The company will be adopting new business practices to prevent a recurrence of these issues and these new procedures will be subject to an extensive and detailed review.”

Finally, the SFO release notes that it ”has previously been subject to criticism in relation to the transparency of the processes and proceedings in civil recovery matters.” Thus the SFO release links to a number of documents including this Claim Form which sets forth specific claim details.

Based on the same core conduct, the World Bank also announced yesterday (here) that “OUP has agreed to make a payment of US$500,000 to the World Bank.” In addition, as part of a negotiated resolution, the World Bank “announced the debarment of two wholly-owned subsidiaries of OUP, namely: Oxford University Press East Africa Limited (OUPEA) and Oxford University Press Tanzania Limited (OUPT) – for a period of three years following OUP’s acknowledgment of misconduct by its two subsidiaries in relation to two Bank-financed education projects in East Africa.”

In a statement (here) OUP Chief Executive Nigel Portwood stated as follows.

“OUP is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards, and we have been deeply concerned to discover evidence of wrongdoing in two of our African subsidiaries. We do not tolerate such behaviour. As soon as these matters came to light we acted immediately to investigate thoroughly and report to the relevant authorities. We have strengthened our management in the region and are taking appropriate disciplinary action in respect of those involved in this conduct.”