That’s just so fringe, where now?, the pulse of FCPA Inc., scrutiny alerts and updates, for the reading stack, and save the date. It’s all here in the Friday Roundup.
That’s Just So Fringe
Many in the anti-corruption space have latched onto developments in other countries and carried forward the torch of reform. Just goggle Anna Hazare’s hunger strike in India or discover the wealth of material written about marches and demonstrations in Brazil prior to Brazil’s bribery laws being amended.
Recently there was a march in Washington D.C., protesting, in part, government corruption. (See here). Why has there not been similar coverage in the anti-corruption space? Where are those who otherwise carried forward the torch of reform? Apparently the reaction is – when it happens here in the U.S. – well, that’s just so fringe.
As DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney, John Burretta “oversaw the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, among others, including the Fraud Section’s FCPA Unit.” He also “supervised the preparation of the DOJ and SEC’s Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, issued in November 2012.”
Like most other DOJ policy leaders and FCPA enforcement attorneys with supervisory powers during this new era of FCPA enforcement, Burretta is now in the private sector as he recently joined Cravath as a partner. (See here). According to his Cravath bio, “his practice focuses on investigations and white collar criminal defense, including advising and representing clients in matters related to the FCPA” among other things.
The Pulse of FCPA Inc.
Few FCPA Inc. participants are publicy-traded companies. Thus, it is often difficult to take the pulse of FCPA Inc. other than anecdotal information.
However, one FCPA Inc. participant that is publicly traded is FTI Consulting. The company recently disclosed that revenues for the quarter in its relevant business segment increased nearly 2% compared to the prior year “due to higher services revenues primarily for investigations involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and interest rate setting process concerning the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) …”.
It’s only one company, but with few FCPA Inc. datapoints publicly available, it is a relevant datapoint.
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
Weatherford International recently disclosed as follows concerning its long-running FCPA scrutiny:
“During the quarter ended June 30, 2013, negotiations related to the oil-for-food and FCPA matters progressed to a point where we recognized a liability for a loss contingency that we believe is probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made. The Company estimates that the amount of this loss is $153 million and recognized a loss contingency equal to such amount in the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Since our last 10-Q filing, substantial progress in the negotiations was made, and these negotiations have recently concluded. These negotiations have resulted in agreements with representatives of the DOJ and the SEC enforcement staff relating to terms and total payments to be made to government agencies relating to the oil-for-food and FCPA matters subject in each case to final review and approval by the DOJ and SEC Commission as well as judicial approval. The agreements would require total payments to government agencies equal to the $153 million loss contingency that the Company recognized in the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The agreements would also include (1) an agreement under which criminal prosecution for the Company would be deferred for three years and a plea agreement would impose a criminal conviction on one of the Company’s subsidiaries; (2) a requirement to retain, for a period of at least 18 months, an independent monitor responsible to assess the Company’s compliance with the terms of the agreement so as to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of alleged misconduct, after which the Company would continue to evaluate its own compliance program and make periodic reports to the DOJ and SEC; and (3) a requirement to maintain agreed compliance monitoring and reporting systems. If final settlement terms differ from the agreements we have reached with DOJ and SEC representatives or if necessary approvals are not ultimately obtained, we could become subject to injunctive relief, disgorgement, fines, penalties, sanctions or imposed modifications to business practices that could adversely affect our results of operations.”
A $153 million FCPA settlement amount would be 8th largest of all time based on the current top ten settlement list.
Layne Christensen Co.
Layne Christensen Co. recently disclosed as follows concerning its long-running FCPA scrutiny:
“The Company is engaged in discussions with the DOJ and the SEC regarding a potential negotiated resolution of these matters. The Company believes that it is likely that any settlement will include both the payment of a monetary fine and the disgorgement of any improper benefits. In May 2013, the staff of the SEC orally advised the Company that they calculated the estimated benefits to the Company from allegedly improper payments, plus interest thereon, to be approximately $4.8 million, which amount was accrued by the Company as of April 30, 2013. Based on the results of the Company’s internal investigation, an analysis of the resolution of recent and similar FCPA resolutions, the Company currently estimates a potential settlement range for resolving these matters (including the amount of a monetary penalty and the disgorgement of any improper benefits plus and interest) of $10.4 million to $16.0 million. The Company has increased its reserve for the settlement of these matters from $4.8 million to $10.4 million, representing the low end of this range. At this time, we can provide no assurances as to whether the Company will be able to settle for an amount equal to its current reserve or within its estimated settlement range or whether the SEC or DOJ will accept voluntary settlement terms that would be acceptable to the Company. Furthermore, the Company cannot currently assess the potential liability that might be incurred if a settlement is not reached and the government was to litigate the matter. As such, based on the information available at this time, any additional liability related to this matter is not reasonably estimable. The Company will continue to evaluate the amount of its liability pending final resolution of the investigation, and any related settlement discussions with the government; the amount of the actual liability for any fines, penalties, disgorgement or interest that may be recorded in connection with a final settlement could be significantly higher than the liability accrued to date. Other than the indication of the estimated disgorgement amount noted above, the Company has not received any proposed settlement offers from the SEC or DOJ and there can be no assurance that its discussions with the DOJ and SEC will result in a final settlement of any or all of these issues or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or that the terms of any such settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company.”
ADM recently disclosed as follows concerning its long-running FCPA scrutiny.
“The Company has completed its internal review and is engaged in discussions with the DOJ and SEC to resolve this matter. In connection with this review, government agencies could impose civil penalties or criminal fines and/or order that the Company disgorge any profits derived from any contracts involving inappropriate payments. Included in selling, general, and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 were charges for the Company’s current estimate of potential disgorgement, penalties, and fines that may be paid by the Company in connection with this matter of $54 million. As of September 30, 2013, the estimated loss provision liability of $54 million is included in accrued expenses and other payables in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. These events have not had, and are not expected to have, a material impact on the Company’s business or financial condition.”
In my first GSK post over the summer, I posed the question – based on GSK disclosures and public statements – whether GSK is the victim of rogue employee conduct?
According to this U.K. Independent article:
“GlaxoSmithKline, the British drug company at the heart of a bribery investigation in China, is likely to avoid a company-wide charge for allegedly funneling up to £300m in kickbacks to doctors and government officials. Instead, police are likely to charge some of its Chinese executives, according to reports citing legal and industry sources. Such an outcome would see Chinese police drop claims made in September that corruption was co-ordinated at a company level. [...] The [Chinese] police investigation into GSK is likely to be concluded around the end of November or in December, said a person with direct knowledge of the probe. The sources noted it was difficult to predict what Chinese authorities would ultimately do. But the most likely legal scenario was that they would charge Chinese GSK executives, said the person with direct knowledge of the investigation and two other sources familiar with the matter. The sources declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the case. Indeed, the Ministry of Public Security had tried to find evidence tying GSK as a legal entity to the alleged wrongdoing, but it was unlikely authorities would be able to prove its involvement at a corporate level, said the person with direct knowledge of the investigation.” (emphasis added).
Bio-Rad recently disclosed that it recorded “an accrued expense of $20 million in connection with the Company’s initial efforts to resolve the previously disclosed investigation of the Company in connection with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
For The Reading Stack
The always informative Miller & Chevalier quarterly update is out. (See here for the Autumn 2012 FCPA Review).
From an article titled “The ‘Mens Rea’ Component Within the Issue of the Over-Federalization of Crime” by John Baker and William Haun in Engage, a Federalist Society publication.
“Designed to prohibit bribery of foreign officials for any business advantage, the [FCPA's] breadth allows the federal government to hold businesses liable for actions by rogue agents. As former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Jones Day partner James Dunlop note, this “adds unnecessary uncertainty and opens businesses to massive, largely unavoidable, liability, with few offsetting benefits.” The statute’s broad language can transgress the intent of Congress. In discussing the example of Wal-Mart, Professor Mike Koehler has shown that Congress had no desire to apply the Act against “grease payments” to clerical employees, but that the backroom nature of FCPA enforcement gives that congressional limitation uncertain relevance. The reluctance of corporations to go to trial minimizes judicial review of the FCPA’s use. As a result, the FCPA investigations have developed a “prosecutorial common law,” allowing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose burdensome compliance costs without having to prove in court that criminal activity has actually occurred or is likely to occur. Companies spend millions to “comply” with requirements possessing an unknown reach. In remarks on the FCPA, former U.S. Attorney General Mukasey observed that, given how few FCPA cases actually see a court room, “there is a whole body of law being developed” in prosecutor’s offices through negotiated FCPA settlements with major companies. Even if the settlements are reasonable, as General Mukasey noted, they do not provide any clarity or consistency necessary to “demystify” an ordinary person’s responsibilities under the law. He noted that DOJ and the business community reached an understanding on some aspects of the FCPA. Such agreements, however, should not serve as the functional equivalent of legislation. It is the obligation of Congress to establish clear mens rea requirements for the FCPA and other statutes, not the executive via piecemeal prosecution.”
“The Diebold settlements underscore the need for companies to fully evaluate whether voluntary disclosure is in the company’s best interest. Although U.S. authorities may be willing to reward companies for self-disclosing FCPA issues — indeed, the DOJ specifically stated in the DPA that it credited Diebold for making such a disclosure — the positive credit received is not always clear. The ultimate financial and operational burden on a company may, in any given instance, outweigh credit received. Based on previous enforcement action settlements, some companies may have assumed that voluntary disclosure assists the company in avoiding the imposition of a compliance monitor. In light of the Diebold settlements, however, companies assessing the option of self-disclosure must consider the real possibility that doing so may not shield them from the increased costs and scrutiny associated with the retention of independent compliance monitors.”
Save The Date
On December 4th in Washington, D.C., George Washington University Law School is hosting a full-day symposium titled “The International Fight Against Corruption: Are the OECD and UN Conventions Achieving their Objectives?” To learn more about the event, see here.