I missed my own anniversary, the anniversary of FCPA Professor that is.
On July 17, 2009, I formally launched FCPA Professor with this Mission Statement.
Approximately 220 posts later, year two has arrived and the mission remains the same.
It is a pleasure to make frequent deliveries to the marketplace of ideas. FCPA Professor is read worldwide by a diverse group of readers and I thank you for making this space a part of your day.
Now for the Friday roundup.
BAE U.K. Settlement Still Pending
BAE’s bribery, yet no bribery U.S. settlement has long been signed, sealed and delivered. See here and here for more. Yet things are taking a bit longer on the other side of the Atlantic according to this report from a U.K. financial website.
According to the report, Serious Fraud Office director Richard Alderman has admitted “that legal challenges by anti-arms campaigners, and the need to get the case’s extensive documentation in order, have seen the conclusion of the bribery investigation put off until autumn at the earliest.”
With the lashing the SFO took in the Innospec enforcement action (see here), the SFO understandably wants to get this one right.
The BAE U.K. settlement is not the only event that has been delayed. As highlighted in this post from earlier week so too is the new U.K. Bribery Act.
Business is Booming
Furthering the notion that anti-bribery and compliance work is an industry in and of itself, the San Jose Business Journal reports in this recent piece that business is booming – and not just among law firms – as the article profiles Deloitte and KPMG.
Noble and Nigeria
A recent post (see here) described Nigeria as a challenging market and highlighted a recent report that found that one in three companies reported paying a bribe to Nigerian public officials in undertaking administrative tasks. The post talked about facilitation payments, which are allowed by the FCPA – at least as written, yet highlighted the many FCPA enforcement actions seemingly based on facilitating payments.
Throw a pending enforcement action against Noble Corporation into that mix.
Here is what the company said in its recent 8-K filing:
“In 2007, we began, and voluntarily contacted the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to advise them of, an internal investigation of the legality under the FCPA and local laws of certain reimbursement payments made by our Nigerian affiliate to customs agents in Nigeria. The SEC and the DOJ have indicated that they believe that violations of the FCPA occurred and will seek civil and/or criminal sanctions against us, including monetary penalties, and may include additional sanctions against us and/or certain of our employees, as well as additional changes to our business practices and compliance programs. We could also face fines or sanctions in relevant foreign jurisdictions.
We consider the matter relating to the Nigeria investigation to be ongoing and cannot predict (a) when it will conclude, (b) whether either the SEC or the DOJ will open its own proceeding to investigate this matter, or (c) if a proceeding is opened, what potential sanctions, penalties or other remedies these agencies may seek. Based on information obtained to date, we believe it is probable that we will pay an amount to settle this matter with the DOJ and SEC. Given that the matter is not finally resolved, we cannot predict with certainty what amount we will pay in civil and criminal fines and penalties; however, as of June 30, 2010, we accrued approximately $5.1 million relating to this ongoing matter. Any of the sanctions as a result of the Nigerian investigation or any other future violation of the FCPA or similar law could have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition and could damage our reputation and ability to do business, to attract and retain employees and to access capital markets.
Frontier identified certain payments totaling approximately $35,000 made by one of its former agents to Nigeria immigration officials in 2009 and reported this matter to the DOJ as a possible violation of the FCPA. We reviewed this matter as part of our diligence investigation of Frontier. The DOJ has not indicated what, if any, action it may take with respect to such payments, although the DOJ could seek civil and/or criminal sanctions against Frontier. Upon closing the Frontier acquisition, we would be responsible for such sanctions as well as any other sanctions relating to violations of applicable laws by Frontier, except to the extent that they may be covered by indemnities contained in the merger agreement with Frontier. Any such sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.”