Top Menu

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Impasse, quotable, scrutiny alerts, um excuse me but, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Impasse

Walmart’s FCPA scrutiny began in late 2011. Yet, nearly seven years later there still has not been an enforcement action.

Bloomberg reports: “Walmart Inc. set aside nearly $300 million last fall for a possible resolution with the U.S. government over international bribery allegations, a sign that an end to the years-long investigation was imminent. But eight months later, the sides are deadlocked, three people familiar with the matter said. It’s not about the money: One source of tension is prosecutors’ insistence that Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, admit to certain misconduct as part of any deal, one of the people said.”

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Across the pond, sentenced, unremarkable, and nonsense. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Across the Pond

As highlighted in this prior post, in July 2016 the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced:

“The SFO is conducting a criminal investigation into the activities of Unaoil, its officers, its employees and its agents in connection with suspected offences of bribery, corruption and money laundering.”

Continue Reading

Once Again, The DOJ Shoots Itself In The Foot

shootingselffoot

The Department of Justice has long wanted companies to voluntarily disclose conduct that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The latest attempt to achieve this policy goal of course was the DOJ’s November 29th announcement of a new “FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.” (This post rounds up all previous posts on this topic).

Why then, literally a few hours after announcing its latest attempt to motivate companies to voluntarily disclose, did the DOJ in announcing the SBM Offshore enforcement action (see here and here for prior posts) once again (see here and here for prior similar posts) shot itself in the foot by making decisions that should result in any board member, audit committee member, or general counsel informed of current events not making the decision to voluntarily disclose?

Continue Reading

“Foreign Official” Notable

important2

This previous post highlighted various issues to consider in the recent SBM Offshore enforcement action.

Buried deep in the approximate 170 pages of resolution documents was another important issue to consider deserving of its own post.

This important issue was likely not a significant factor in the overall resolution of the matter (after all, as highlighted in the previous post, the conduct at issue “lasted over 16 years, was carried out by employees at the highest level of the organization, including two high-level executives who were at times directors of a wholly-owned U.S. domestic concern, involved large bribe payments, and included deliberate efforts to conceal the scheme”).

Continue Reading

Issues To Consider From The SBM Offshore Enforcement Action

Issues

This previous post went in-depth into the $238 million DOJ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Netherlands-based SBM Offshore for alleged bribery schemes in Brazil, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan and Iraq.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting additional issues to consider.

DOJ Explains Its Original “Declination”

As highlighted in the original post, in 2014 SBM Offshore resolved a $240 million Dutch law enforcement action alleging bribery schemes in Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Brazil between 2007 through 2011. In connection with that action, SBM Offshore disclosed: “the United States Department of Justice has informed SBM Offshore that it is not prosecuting the Company and has closed its inquiry into the matter.”

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes