Top Menu

Archive | Legislative History

Lennox International – The Most Absurd FCPA Voluntary Disclosure Ever?


Lennox International is involved in the heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets.

The question needs to be asked: what made the company so hot as to recently disclose to the DOJ and SEC an investigation into a $475 payment in Russia to release a shipment of goods being held by customs officials?

The disclosure is arguably one of the most absurd FCPA disclosures ever.

There is of course no legal obligation to voluntarily disclose, something even the DOJ acknowledges in its April 2016 FCPA Pilot Program. But then again, returning to an issue first highlighted in this 2009, voluntary disclosure is the fuel that feeds FCPA enforcement and is extremely lucrative for FCPA Inc. Indeed, who can forget the words of the former DOJ Fraud Section Chief in this Wall Street Journal article “if you get two of these [FCPA investigations] a year as a partner, you’re pretty much set.”

Lennox’s decision to disclose was presumably a business decision made by the board of directors or audit committee based on the advise of FCPA counsel. If FCPA counsel did indeed advise company leaders to disclose, that advise needs to be seriously questioned.

Continue Reading

Survey Responses Indicate That The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same

no change

The “Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices” highlights how Congress clearly understood and appreciated the many difficult foreign business conditions facing U.S. companies.

For instance, the 1976 SEC Report on Questionable and Illegal Corporate Payments and Practices, on which Congress placed great reliance during its multi-year legislative process leading to the FCPA, documented a wide range of foreign corporate payments to a variety of recipients for a variety of reasons including payments “to persuade low-level governmental officials to perform functions or services which they are obligated to perform as part of their governmental responsibilities, but which they may refuse or delay unless compensated.”

Congress could have legislated as to the wide range of foreign corporate payments brought to its attention and certain bills introduced during the multi-year legislative process leading to the FCPA did indeed capture a wide range of payments. Yet, in passing the FCPA Congress intended to capture only a narrow range of foreign corporate payments.

Continue Reading

How A Foreign Non-Issuer Company Can Become Subject To The FCPA’s Anti-Bribery Provisions


This recent report suggests that Angelica Rivera, wife of Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto, is using a luxury property in Florida bought by a company (Grupo Pierdant) that is expected to bid for lucrative Mexican government contracts. According to the report, Grupo Pierdant has also paid the property tax on an additional Florida property bought by a holding company set up by Rivera.

This post uses the recent report to review how a foreign non-issuer company (such as Grupo Pierdant) can become subject to the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Continue Reading

Skittish Then, Still Skittish Now


The more things change, the more things stay the same, including the skittishness of the business community surrounding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related laws and its attendant real-world consequences.

This recent “Global Anti-Corruption Survey” (a survey of 330 “respondents around the world to understand companies’ usage of anti-corruption programs and its impact on business decisions as well as due diligence in practice) contains a litany of responses concerning the 50% (or so) of respondents who, because of “concerns about violating anti-corruption regulations”

Continue Reading

Hail To The Chief

President Seal

Today is Presidents’ Day.

This post highlights the roles of the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and William Clinton administrations in enactment and subsequent development of the FCPA.

The article “The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” also contains a detailed overview of the roles of the Ford and Carter administrations.


After watching Congress investigate and hold hearings on the foreign payments problem for approximately nine months, in March 1976 President Ford issued a  “Memorandum Establishing the Task Force on Questionable Corporate Payments  Abroad” (see here).

The great debate at this time was whether the foreign payments problem should be addressed through a disclosure regime or through a criminalization regime.  The Ford Administration favored the former and in June 1976, President Ford released “Remarks Announcing New Initiatives for the Task Force on Questionable Corporate Payments Abroad.” (see here).  As noted in the remarks, President Ford directed the task force “to prepare legislation that would require corporate disclosure of all payments made with the intention of  influencing foreign government officials.”

Certain bills were introduced in Congress consistent with Ford’s vision and in August 1976 President Ford issued “Foreign Payments Disclosure – Message From the President of the United States Urging Enactment of Proposed Legislation to Require the Disclosure of Payments to Foreign Officials.” (see here).

Neither Ford’s proposal, or any other, was enacted by Congress prior to the 1976 elections in which Ford was defeated by Jimmy Carter.


Unlike the Ford Administration, the Carter administration favored the criminalization regime that was under consideration in the prior Congress.  When Congress reconvened in January 1977 after the election, the movement to adopt a criminalization regime soon picked up speed again.

Certain members of the Carter administration testified at Congressional hearings throughout 1977 in favor of the criminalization regime and in December 1977, S. 305 (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and the Domestic and Foreign Investment Improved Disclosure Act of 1977) was presented to President Carter.

On December 20, 1977, President Carter signed S. 305 into law – see here for his signing statement.


As noted in this previous post, President Reagan’s administration very soon sought decriminalization of foreign payments subject to the FCPA. During the Reagan administration, numerous efforts were made in Congress to amend the FCPA. Soon after the FCPA was enacted, it was widely recognized that while the FCPA had addressed a serious problem, the statute created much uncertainty and was, in the minds of many, unworkable.

Among other things, the FCPA antibribery provisions enacted in 1977 contained a broad knowledge standard (“reason to know”) applicable to indirect payments to “foreign officials”; (ii) did not contain any affirmative defenses; and (iii) did not contain an express facilitating payments exception. Beginning in 1980, various bills were introduced – either as stand alone bills or specific titles to omnibus trade and export bills – that sought to amend the FCPA. This legislative process took eight years.

In August 1988, President Reagan signed H.R. 4848 the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Title V, Subtitle A, Part I of the Act was titled “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amendments.” President Reagan’s signing statement does not refer to the FCPA amendments buried in the omnibus trade bill. Among the amendments were a revised knowledge standard applicable to indirect payments and the creation of affirmative defenses and an express facilitating payment exception.


In November 1998, President Clinton signed S. 2375, the “International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998.” Among other things, the Act amended the FCPA by (i) creating a new class of persons subject to the FCPA – “any person” not an issuer or domestic concern to the extent such person’s bribery scheme has a U.S. nexus; and (ii) creating a new alternative nationality jurisdiction test for U.S. issuers and domestic concerns.

See here for President Clinton’s signing statement.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes