Question to ponder, scrutiny alerts and updates, Caremark, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Question to Ponder
If publicly-traded companies can put law enforcement to its burden of proof in peer countries, why do publicly traded companies (nearly universally) roll over and play dead when the subject of U.S. law enforcement inquiries?
How much do you know about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Let’s find out.
To commemorate the FCPA’s 40th year, FCPA Professor is presenting the FCPA Challenge.
Each Thursday during 2018, a question will be posed and the answer will be below the fold.
This week’s question is: a 2015 FCPA trial against this defendant largely fell apart when the presiding judge asked the DOJ’s star witness: “did you have a hallucination”?
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that FCPA information sources should strive to make things more clear and not muddy the conversational waters.
Yet, the FCPA Blog seems to have a knack for the later (e.g. sorry FCPA Blog, but Legg Mason did not pay $2.4 million to the SEC, but rather $34.5 million) including its posts on so-called “declinations” which are then frequently flung into the FCPA’s echo chamber.
The FCPA Flash podcast provides in an audio format the same fresh, candid, and informed commentary about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related topics as readers have come to expect from written posts on FCPA Professor.
This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Keith Rosen and Pamela Reddy (both attorneys with Norton Rose Fulbright, Rosen in Washington, D.C. and Reddy in London). Along with other Norton Rose attorneys, Rosen and Reedy recently authored an article titled “Self-Reporting Bribery: The Ongoing Dilemma” that caught my eye. During the podcast, Rosen and Reddy highlight voluntary disclosure dynamics on both sides of the Atlantic and whether the enforcement agencies are actually “shooting themselves in the foot (see here, here, here and here for prior posts) when it comes to encouraging voluntary disclosure.
Harvard Law School Professor Matthew Stephenson has an impressive background.
Yet his Foreign Corrupt Practices Act views are, well, let’s just say interesting.
Recently, in the aftermath of the Second Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Hoskins (see here, here and here for prior posts), Stephenson further advanced his view that judicial scrutiny of FCPA enforcement is not good because the DOJ might lose.
As highlighted in this prior post, in November 2017 the DOJ announced that Chi Ping Patrick Ho and Cheikh Gadio were criminally charged with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violating the FCPA, conspiring to commit international money laundering, and committing international money laundering.
According to the DOJ: “[T]he defendants engaged in two bribery schemes to pay high-level officials of Chad and Uganda in exchange for business advantages for the Energy Company, a Shanghai-headquartered multibillion-dollar conglomerate that operates internationally in the energy and financial sectors.”
Interested in elevating your Foreign Corrupt Practices Act knowledge and practical skills?
For professionals in the FCPA space – or wishing to join the FCPA space – this is what the FCPA Institute is all about and the next FCPA Institute will be in Philadelphia on October 18-19.
The FCPA Institute is different than a typical FCPA conference.
At the FCPA Institute, information is presented in an integrated and cohesive manner by an expert instructor with FCPA practice and teaching experience. Moreover, the FCPA Institute promotes active learning by participants through issue-spotting videos, skills exercises, small-group discussions and the sharing of real-world practices and experiences. To best facilitate the unique learning experience that the FCPA Institute represents, attendance at each FCPA Institute is capped at 25 participants.
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, United Technologies Corporation resolved a $13.9 million FCPA enforcement action. The conduct at issue concerned a Russian and Azerbaijani improper payment scheme, a China aviation scheme, improper payments for sales in China, and leisure travel for foreign officials from several countries including China, Kuwait, South Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia. This post highlights additional issues to consider from the enforcement action.
This prior post went in-depth into the SEC’s $13.9 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against United Technologies Corp. and this post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.
Timeline
As highlighted in this prior post, UTC’s FCPA scrutiny began in late 2013/early 2014. Thus, from start to finish its scrutiny lasted approximately 4.5 years.
How much do you know about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Let’s find out.
To commemorate the FCPA’s 40th year, FCPA Professor is presenting the FCPA Challenge.
Each Thursday during 2018, a question will be posed and the answer will be below the fold.
This week’s question is: in 2011 the SEC used a deferred prosecution agreements (its first in the FCPA context) to resolve an FCPA enforcement action against this company?
Yesterday, the SEC announced that United Technologies Corporation resolved a $13.9 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.
The conduct at issue concerned Otis Elevator Co. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of UTC), Pratt & Whitney (an operating division of UTC), and International Aero Engines (a joint venture of five aerospace companies including Pratt & Whitney) regarding a Russian and Azerbaijani improper payment scheme, a China aviation scheme, improper payments for Otis Elevator sales in China, and leisure travel for foreign officials from several countries including China, Kuwait, South Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia.
This recent post highlighted how securities fraud class actions in the aftermath of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions or mere instances of FCPA scrutiny are frequently dismissed.
This remains a true statement, but as highlighted in this post, sometimes a claim or two does advance past the motion to dismiss stage as was recently the case in matters involving Cognizant Technology Solutions and Obebrecht.