Top Menu

This Week On FCPA Professor

ThisWeekPost

FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”

Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor.

As highlighted here, it is ridiculous that Walmart was required to engage a monitor as a condition of its recent FCPA enforcement action. Nevertheless, the monitor agreement is interesting.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Scrutiny alert, the irony of it all, just saying …, not sure why, no more third parties, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Alerts

AAR Corp.

The company, a provider of aviation services with numerous U.S. government contracts, recently disclosed:

“The Company retained outside counsel to investigate possible violations of the Company’s Code of Conduct, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and other applicable laws, relating to the Company’s activities in Nepal and South Africa.  Based on these investigations, we self-reported these matters to the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the UK Serious Fraud Office.  The Company will fully cooperate in any review by these agencies, although we are unable at this time to predict what action, if any, they may take.”

Continue Reading

Once Again, Rebooting A Long-Standing FCPA Proposal, This Time In The Aftermath Of A Recent Disclosure By Misonix

proposal

Including the first time I proposed this concept in 2010, this is the 9th time I have written this general post (see hereherehereherehereherehere and here for the previous versions) and until things change I will keep writing it which means I will probably keep writing this same general post long into the future.

The proposal is this: when a company voluntarily discloses an FCPA internal investigation to the DOJ and/or SEC and when one or both of the enforcement agencies do not bring an enforcement action, have the enforcement agency publicly state, in a thorough and transparent mannerthe facts the company disclosed and why the enforcement agency did not bring an enforcement action based on those facts.

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The TechnipFMC Enforcement Action

Issues

This previous post went in-depth into the net $81.9 million DOJ FCPA enforcement action against TechnipFMC and how the company joined the FCPA repeat offender list. This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.

Statute of Limitations

Pardon me for being “that guy” but the bulk of the conduct at issue in the enforcement action (both the Technip USA information and plea involving alleged conduct in Brazil and the TechnipFMC  information and DPA involving alleged conduct in Iraq) took place between 2003 and 2010 (in other words approximately 10 – 15 years prior to the enforcement action).

Continue Reading

Delaware Supreme Court Allows Caremark Claim To Proceed

Judicial Decision

Prior posts here, here and here concerned so-called “Caremark Claims.”

In short, a corporate director’s duty of good faith has evolved over time to include an obligation to attempt in good faith to assure that an adequate corporate information and reporting system exists. In Caremark (a 1996 decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery – a trial court), the court held that a director’s failure to do so, in certain circumstances, may give rise to individual director liability for breach of fiduciary duty. In 2006, in Stone v. Ritter, the Delaware Supreme Court provided the following necessary conditions for director oversight liability under the so-called Caremark standard: (i) a director utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls; or (ii) having implemented such systems or controls, a director failed to monitor or oversee the corporation’s operations.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes