Top Menu

Daimler – “That’s All Folks”

Growing up, I was fond of the Looney Tunes cartoons. These episodes ended with a character saying, “that’s all folks” (see here).

Today, April Fools Day, marked the end of the Daimler enforcement action as Judge Richard Leon concluded that the settlement between the DOJ and Daimler AG and certain of its subsidiaries (described in more detail in this post) “is an appropriate and just resolution” of the matter. See here for Christopher Matthews first-hand account at Main Justice.

In other words, “that’s all folks.”

The DOJ release (here) states that Daimler (and three of its subsidiaries) “brazenly offered bribes in exchange for business around the world” and that Daimler “saw foreign bribery as a way of doing business.”

Yet, despite such statements, the DOJ (as described in more detail in the above linked post) did not charge Daimler with violating the FCPA’s antibribery provisions. Thus, yet another bribery, yet no bribery case.

In fact, by resolving the case via a deferred prosecution agreement, Daimler will not have to plead guilty to anything.

The message sent by DOJ in this case, and the other recent bribery, yet no bribery cases (i.e. BAE and Siemens) is that corporate criminals (per the DOJ’s own evidence) can simply escape the most severe consequences of criminal conduct (see here for what that would have been in the Daimler case) by cooperating with the DOJ, paying several millions into the U.S. treasury, and offering up a few indirect, insignificant subsidiaries as sacrificial corporate lambs.

This is troubling and it is an alarming feature of FCPA enforcement in an increasing number of cases. It also smacks of hypocrisy from a DOJ that extols the virtues of the rule of law at every available opportunity.

The final tally, as noted in the DOJ release, is $93.6 million in criminal fines and penalties, a deferred prosecution agreement against Dailmer (but not as to FCPA antibribery charges), criminal pleas by a finance division (Export and Trade Finance GmbH) and a spare parts subsidiary (DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia), and another deferred prosecution agreement against a Chinese subsidiary.

Before turning to the SEC component of the case, a settlement Judge Leon also blessed today, a bit more about the “independent corporate monitor” appointed in this matter.

As discussed in this post, that monitor is Louis Freeh.

The deferred prosecution agreement (here) states, at Appendix D, that the monitor should have “sufficient independence from Daimler to ensure effective and impartial performance.”

Approximately two years ago, in the wake of much criticism over the selection and role of monitors in DOJ enforcement actions, the DOJ released the so-called Morford Memo (see here). Among other things, the memo states that “the Government should decline to accept a monitor if he or she has an interest in, or relationship with, the corporation or its employees, officers or directors that would cause a reasonable person to question the monitor’s impartiality.”

As confirmed in this Daimler release, Freeh has been associated with Daimler since 2006.

SEC

Today, the SEC announced (here) the filing of a civil complaint (here) against Daimler charging violations of the FCPA antibribery, books and records and internal control provisions.

The SEC’s charges add little to the picture already painted in the DOJ’s various charging and resolution documents. Further, because a company in an SEC enforcement action of this nature, is allowed to settle the SEC’s allegations “without admitting or denying” the allegations, the SEC’s charges do not change the above described dynamics and troubling features of this enforcement action.

For the the record, Daimler agreed to settle the SEC matter by, among other things, paying $91.4 million in disgorgement.

The SEC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement stated, “it is no exaggeration to describe corruption and bribe-paying at Daimler as a standard business practice.”

Innospec Gets Hit on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Last month (see here) Innospec, Inc. disclosed that it accured $40.2 million for potential settlement of corruption investigations on both sides of the Atlantic. Yesterday, on both sides of the Atlantic, it was announced that Innospec agreed to resolve these enforcement actions by, among other things, paying $40.2 million in combined fines and penalties. How’s that for an accurate corporate disclosure!

See here for the DOJ release and criminal information, here for the SEC release and complaint, and here for the SFO release and supporting documents.

If you are looking for additional evidence / validation that the DOJ and SFO cooperate in enforcement actions, this would be it!

As explained more fully below, the Innospec enforcement action is part Iraqi Oil for Food, part payment of excessive travel and entertainmet expenses, part Cuba, part Indonesia and it involves U.S. companies, U.K. entities, Swiss entities, U.S. citizens, British citizens, German citizens, South African citizens, and Iraqi citizens.

Innospec manufacturers and sells speciality chemicals and is apparently the “world’s only manufacturer of the anti-knock compound tetraethyl lead, used in leaded gasoline.”

DOJ

According to the DOJ criminal information (here), Innospec, Innospec Limited (a wholly-owned U.K. subsidiary), Alcor Chemie Vertriebs GmbH (a wholly-owned Swiss subsidiary), Ousama Naaman (an agent for Innospec and Alcor in Iraq and elsewhere), and others, knowingly conspired: (i) to defraud the U.N. Oil for Food Program; (ii) to violate the FCPA’s antibribery provisions; and (iii) to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions.

According to the information, the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to “obtain and retain lucrative business with the government of Iraq through payment and promise of payment of kickbacks and bribes to the Iraqi government and its officials.

In addition to the “standard” Oil for Food allegations found in previous enforcement actions (i.e. inflated commission payments to an agent which were then used to pay kickbacks to the government of Iraq), the information further alleges that “Naaman, on behalf of Innospec, paid approximately $150,000 in bribes to officials of the [Ministry of Oil (“MoO”)] to ensure” that a competitor’s product “failed a field trial test and therefore would not be used by the [MoO]…”

In addition, the information alleges that “Innospec and Naaman agreed to pay and promise to pay bribes, including but not limited to money, travel, gifts, and entertainment, to officials of the MoO to obtain and retain contracts.”

Among other overt acts, the information details an e-mail Naaman sent to, among others, Executive B (a U.S. citizen and former senior Innospec executive) that indicates “with [Director’s (a U.K. citizen and former Innospec Division Managing Director)] instructions, we proceeded, as we don’t want to discuss this issue in writing any further because it is so delicate, and as per [Director’s] instructions that we don’t elaborate in writing, for which I agree.”

According to the information, Innospec paid Naaman over $700,000 to reimburse him for payments to Iraqi officials.

The information also contains “travel” allegations including: that Innospec paid approximately $35,000 for eight Iraqi officials to travel to Switzerland for a morning meeting and “four days of sightseeing” complete with “9,000 in pocket money” for the officials;” that Naaman arranged for cash filled envelopes to be given to Iraqi officials visiting the U.K.; that Innospec paid for an Iraqi official’s “vacation with his wife in Thailand” a trip with cost approximately $13,000 including “pocket money” for the official; and that Alcor reimbursed Naaman $35,000 “to cover the cost of the travel of the three Iraqi MoO officials to Lebanon for the half-day meeting to finalize the 2008 Long Term Purchase Agreement, including hotel accomodations for six days, $1,800 for ‘entertainment, lunches, & dinners in Lebanon,’ $1,650 for ‘mobile phone cards for international calling + 3 cameras’ and $15,000 in ‘pocket money.'”

According to the information, all of these payments were improperly recorded on Alcor’s books and records (which were consolidatd with Innospec’s for purposes of financial reporting) as “commissions” or “sales promotion expenditures.”

In addition to the above described conspiracy charge, the information also charges five counts of wire fraud, five counts of FCPA antibribery violations and an FCPA books and records violation.

The DOJ release notes that, pursuant to a yet to be released plea agreement, “Innospec also admitted to selling chemicals to Cuban power plants in violation of the U.S. embargo against Cuba.” The DOJ release further notes that Innospec acknowledged paying “approximately $2.9 million in bribes to officials of the Indonesian government to secure sales.”

According to the DOJ release, as part of the plea agreement, “Innospec agreed to pay a $14.1 million criminal fine and to retain an independent compliance monitor for a minimum of three years to oversee the implementation of a robust anti-corruption and export control compliance program and report periodically to the DOJ.” According to the release, “Innospec also agreed to fully cooperate with the DOJ and other U.S. and foreign authorities in ongoing investigations of corrupt payments by Innospec employees and agents.”

In other words, stayed tuned for more. Previously, Naaman (the agent) was indicted (see here).

In annoucing the charges, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer noted that “[t]oday’s case is a win for law-abiding companies trying to compete fairly in the marketplace” and that “fraud and corruption cannot be viewed simply as a cost of doing business.”

For more on the Innospec plea hearing, including Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle’s concern about the compliance monitor, see here for Christopher Matthew’s piece from Main Justice. For more on compliance monitors, and the controversy often associated with them, see here.

SEC

In its complaint (here), the SEC alleges that “[f]rom 2000 to 2007, Innospec violated the anti-bribery, books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA when it routinely paid bribes in order to sell Tetra Ethyl Lead (“TEL”) … to government owned refineries and oil companies in Iraq and Indonesia.”

According to the SEC, “Innospec’s former management did nothing to stop the bribery activity, and in fact authorized and encouraged it.” The SEC alleges that “Innospec’s internal controls failed to detect the illicit conduct, which continued for nearly a decade.”

According to the SEC, “[i]n all, Innospec made illicit payments of approximately $6,347,588 and promised an additional $2,870,377 in illicit payments to Iraqi ministries, Iraqi government officials, and Indonesian government officials in exchange for contracts worth $176,717,341 in revenues and profits of $60,071,613.”

The SEC’s charges relating to Iraqi are substantively similar to the DOJ’s allegations in the criminal information and include both Iraqi Oil for Food conduct as well as additional improper conduct after the Oil for Food Program was terminated in late 2003.

The SEC’s complaint has more detail than the DOJ’s criminal information concerning Indonesia and alleges: (i) that “[f]rom 2000 until approximately 2005, Innospec used [a] Indonesian Agent [an Indonesian citizen] and his company to pay bribes of approximately $1,323,507 to Official X [a senior official at BP Migas, an Indonesian state owned oil and gas company … who previously was a senior official at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources]”; (ii) that “in 2000 and 2001, Innospec also made payments [totaling $700,000] to government officials at Pertamina, another state owned oil compay related to BP Migas” through a “privately owned bank in Geneva, Switzerland;” and (iii) that Innospec “also bribed other officials at Pertamina in order to influence their decisions regarding TEL purchases.”

The SEC charged that “at least one U.S. person and officer was complicit in the scheme” and that “[m]any of the bribes were mischaracterized as legitimate commissions, travel and legal fees in Innospec’s books and records.”

According to the SEC, “as evidenced by the extent and duration of the improper payments to foreign officials made by Innospec, the improper recording of these payments in Innospec’s books and records, and the significant involvement of certain members of management at the highest levels of the company, Innospec failed to devise and maintain an effective system of internal controls to prevent or detect these anti-bribery and books and records violations.

The SEC release (here) notes that Innospec, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, was ordered to pay $60,071,613 in disgorgement, but because of Innospec’s “sworn Statement of Financial Condition” all but $11,200,000 of that disgorgement will be waived. The release states that “[b]ased on its financial condition, Innospec offered to pay a reduced criminal fine of $14.1 million to the DOJ and a criminal fine of $12.7 million to the SFO. Innospec will pay $2.2 million to OFAC for unrelated conduct concerning allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.

***

Stay tuned for additional analysis of the SFO – U.K. prong of this enforcement action.

Ready, Set, Go …

The 2010 FCPA enforcement year has begun.

Yesterday, the SEC announced (here) resolution of an FCPA books and records and internal controls action against NATCO Group Inc. – a Houston based “worldwide leader in design, manufacture, and service” of oil and gas process equipment (see here).

The SEC complaint (here) alleges that TEST Automation & Controls, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of NATCO Group, “created and accepted false documents while paying extorted immigration fines and obtaining immigration visas in the Republic of Kazakhstan.” According to the complaint, “NATCO’s system of internal accounting controls failed to ensure that TEST recorded the true purpose of the payments, and NATCO’s consolidated books and records did not accurately reflect these payments.”

According to the complaint, TEST maintained a branch office in Kazakhstan and in June 2005 it won a contract which required it to hire both expatriates and local Kazakh workers. Pursuant to Kazakh law, TEST needed to obtain immigration documentation before an expatriate worker could enter the country. Thereafter, Kazakh immigration authorities claimed that TEST’s expatriate workers were working without proper documentation and the authorities threatened to fine, jail, or deport the workers if TEST did not pay cash fines.

According to the complaint, TEST employees believed the threats to be genuine and, after consulting with U.S. TEST management who authorized the payments, paid the officials approximately $45,0000 using their personal funds for which the employees were reimbursed by TEST.

The complaint alleges that when reimbursing the employees for these payments, TEST inaccurately described the money as: (i) being an advance on a bonus; and (ii) visa fines.

The complaint further alleges that TEST used consultants in Kazakhstan to assist in obtaining immigration documentation for its expatriate employees and that “one of these consultants did not have a license to perform visa services, but maintained close ties to an employee working at the Kazakh Ministry of Labor, the entity issuing the visas.” According to the complaint, the consultant twice requested cash from TEST to help him obtain the visas and the complaint alleges that the consultant provided TEST with bogus invoices to support the payments.

Based on the above allegations, the SEC charged NATCO with FCPA books and records and internal control violations even though the complaint is completely silent as to any involvement or knowledge by NATCO in the conduct at issue. This action is thus the latest example of an issuer being strictly liable for a subsidiary’s books and records violations (see here for a prior post).

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, NATCO agreed to pay a $65,000 civil penalty. According to the SEC’s findings in a related cease and desist order (here), during a routine internal audit review, NATCO discovered potential issues involving payments at TEST, conducted an internal investigation, and voluntarily disclosed the results to the SEC. The order also lists several other remedial measures NATCO implemented.

I’ve noted in prior posts that one of the effects of voluntary disclosure is that it sets into motion a whole series of events including, in many cases, a much broader review of the company’s operations so that the company can answer the enforcement agencies’ “where else may this have occurred” question.

On this issue, the SEC order states that NATCO “expanded its investigation to examine TEST’s other worldwide operations, including Nigeria, Angola, and China, geographic locations with historic FCPA concerns.” However, the SEC order notes that “NATCO’s expanded internal investigation of TEST uncovered no wrongdoing.”

According to the complaint, at all times relevant to the complaint, NATCO’s stock was listed on the NYSE, but in November 2009 NATCO became a subsidiary of Cameron International Corporation (here) (an NYSE listed company) and NATCO’s NYSE listing ended.

The NATCO enforcement action is “as garden variety” of an FCPA enforcement action as perhaps one will find. Not only does moving product into and out of a country expose a company to FCPA risk, but so too does moving employees into and out of a country.

The NATCO civil penalty also demonstrates that in certain cases, the smallest “cost” of an alleged FCPA violation are the fines or penalties, figures which are so dwarfed by investigative, remedial and resolution costs.

A Look Back (and Forward)

This week marks not only the end of a year, but also a decade.

So let’s take a look back at FCPA enforcement circa 2000.

In 2000, the FCPA was indeed “on the books” (the statute was enacted in 1977), yet there was little in terms of FCPA news or enforcement actions.

A “U.S. newspapers and wires” search for the FCPA in the 2000 picks up 64 “hits” and among the more noteworthy stories from that year were the following:

(1) BellSouth corporation disclosed that the SEC launched a probe into whether one of its Latin American subsidiaries violated the FCPA and the company also disclosed that its outside counsel had already investigated the conduct and found that no violations had occurred; and

(2) BF Goodrich Company announced that it was using a web-enabled training system to educate its employees about work-related legal issues including the FCPA.

One could even attend a few FCPA training sessions in 2000 as the search picked up programs sponsored by both the City of New York Bar and the Washington DC Bar.

There was even one FCPA enforcement action in 2000!

In December 2000, the SEC announced (here) the filing of a settled cease-and-desist proceeding against International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”).

According to the SEC order (here), IBM violated the books and records provisions of the FCPA based on the conduct of its indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, IBM-Argentina, S.A. The conduct involved “presumed illicit payments to foreign officials” in connection with a “$250 million systems integration contract” between Banco de la Nacion Argentina (“BNA”) (an apparent “government-owned commercial bank in Argentina) and IBM-Argentina.

The SEC order finds that, in connection with the contract, IBM-Argentina’s Former Senior Management (without the knowledge or approval of any IBM employee in the U.S.) caused IBM-Argentina to enter into a subcontract with an Argentine corporation (“CCR”) and that “money paid to CCR by IBM-Argentina in connection with the subcontract was apparently subsequently paid by CCR to certain BNA officials.”

According to the Order, IBM-Argentina paid CCR approximately $22 million under the subcontract and “at least $4.5 million was transferred to several BNA directors by CCR.”

According to the Order, the former Senior Management “overrode IBM procurement and contracting procedures, and hid the details of the subcontract from the technical and financial review personnel assigned to the Contract.” The Order finds that IBM-Argentina “recorded the payments to CCR in its books and records as third-party subcontractor expenses” and that IBM-Argentina’s financial results were incorporated into IBM’s financial results filed with the Commission.

Based on the above conduct, the SEC concluded that “IBM violated [the FCPA’s books and records provisions] by failing to ensure that IBM-Argentina maintained books and records which accurately reflected IBM-Argentina’s transactions and dispositions of assets with respect to the Subcontract.” IBM consented to a cease and desist order and consented to entry of a judgment ordering it to pay a $300,000 penalty.

A Washington Post article about the IBM action notes that it “is the SEC’s first in three years involving overseas bribery.”

In 2000, there were no DOJ FCPA prosecutions (against corporations or individuals).

The first DOJ corporate FCPA prosecution of this decade did not occur until 2002.

In that action (here) Syncor Taiwan, Inc. (a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Syncor International Corporation) pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal information charging violations of the FCPA. According to the DOJ release, “[t]he company admitted making improper payments [approximately $344,110] to physicians employed by hospitals owned by the legal authorities in Taiwan for the purpose of obtaining and retaining business from those hospitals and in connection with the purchase and sale of unit dosages of certain radiopharmaceuticals.”

The release further notes that the company “made payments [approximately $113,000] to physicians employed by hospitals owned by the legal authorities in Taiwan in exchange for their referrals of patients to medial imaging centers owned and operated by the defendant.”

Based on this conduct, the release notes that the company agreed to a $2 million criminal fine – “the maximum criminal fine for a corporation under the FCPA” (as noted in the release). The release also notes that “Syncor International has consented to the entry of a judgment requiring it to pay a $500,000 civil penalty, the largest penalty ever obtained by the SEC in an FCPA case.”.

From this retrospective, two issues jump out.

First, as demonstrated by the IBM action, the notion that an issuer may be strictly liable for a subsidiary’s (even if indirect) violations of the FCPA books and records is nothing new. (See here for a prior post on this issue).

Second, as demonstrated by the Syncor action, DOJ’s interpretation of the “foreign official” element to include non-government employees employed by state-owned or state-controlled entities stretches back to earlier this decade. (See here for prior posts on this issue).

This retrospective also highlights just how significantly FCPA enforcement has changed this decade.

For starters, the same “U.S. newspapers and wires” search for the FCPA (year to date) picks up nearly 700 “hits” (a ten-fold increase from ten years ago). In addition, if one wanted to, one could attend (it seems) an FCPA seminar, training session, bar event, etc. every week in a different state.

Further, I bet my Jack LaLanne Power Juicer received this holiday season that if the IBM enforcement action were to have recently occurred, the SEC would have also charged FCPA internal control violations as well as sought a significant disgorgement penalty given that the alleged improper payments in that matter helped secure a $250 million contract.

Moreover, the $2 million “maximum criminal fine for a corporation under the FCPA” (as noted in the Syncor DOJ release) seems laughable when viewed in the context of the $450 million Siemens criminal fine (Dec. 2008) or the $402 million Kellogg Brown & Root criminal fine (Feb. 2009). Also laughable is the $500,000 “largest penalty ever obtained by the SEC in an FCPA case” (as noted in the Syncor release) when viewed in the context of the $350 million Siemens penalty or the $177 million KBR/Halliburton penalty.

Has the conduct become more egregious during this decade or have enforcement theories and strategies simply changed? I doubt it is the former.

Why have enforcement theories and strategies changed? One of the best, candid explanations I’ve heard recently is that FCPA enforcement for the government “is lucrative.” (See here).

One of the great legal “head-scratchers” of this decade is how DOJ and SEC’s enforcement of the FCPA against business entities has taken place almost entirely outside of the normal judicial process due to the fact that corporate FCPA prosecutions are resolved through non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements, settled through SEC cease and desist orders, or otherwise resolved informally. The end result is that in many cases, the FCPA means what DOJ and SEC says it means.

My hope for the New Year and decade is that many of the untested and unchallenged legal theories which are now common in FCPA enforcement will actually be subject to judicial scrutiny and interpretation.

Lack of Pride (And That CITGO Sign Too)

If the SEC were to put titles on its complaints, the above may be fitting for the complaint released (see here) earlier this week against Bobby Benton (the former Vice President, Western Hemisphere Operations for Pride International, Inc.).

In its complaint (see here), the SEC alleges that “Benton was responsible for, among other things, ensuring that Pride conducted its Western Hemisphere operations in compliance with the FCPA, that adequate controls were in place to prevent illegal payments, and that the company’s books and records were accurate.”

Despite this position, the SEC alleges that: (i) “Benton authorized the payment of $10,000 to a third party, believing that all or a portion of the funds would be given by the third party to a Mexican customs official in return for favorable treatment by the official regarding certain customs deficiencies identified during a customs inspection of a Pride supply boat; (ii) “Benton learned that a customs agent engaged by Pride’s Mexican subsidiaries paid approximately $15,000 to a Mexican customs official to ensure that the export of a rig would not be delayed due to customs violations; and (iii) Benton concealed the bribe payments made by the manager of the Venezuelan branch of a French subsidiary of Pride from Pride’s internal and external auditors by “redact[ing] references to the Venezuelan payments in an action plan responding to an internal audit report.”

The SEC further alleges that “[d]espite his knowledge, and in one instance authorization, of the Venezuelan and Mexican bribes, Benton signed two false certifications in connection with audits and reviews of Pride’s financial statements denying any knowledge of bribery.” The financial results of the Mexican and Venezuelan entities were consolidated with Pride’s for purposes of financial reporting.

The “foreign officials” involved are Mexican customs officials / customs agents and an official of Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), the Venezuelan state-owned oil company.

Based on the above conduct, the SEC charged Benton with violating the FCPA’s antibribery provisions, aiding and abetting FCPA violations, and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions.

Most SEC FCPA enforcement actions (whether against a company or an individual) are settled on the same day the civil complaint is filed. Not so in this case and the SEC complaint notes that Benton asserted his 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination when subpoenaed to testify by the SEC. Will the SEC actually be put to its burden of proof in an FCPA case?

Pride International’s most recent disclosure on this issue is in its 10-Q filed on November 2, 2009 (see here – pgs. 17-18). As noted in the disclosure, what began as an inquiry into Latin America operations has spawned into a substantial worldwide review of the company’s operations.

*****

The Benton complaint mentions Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), the Venezuelan state-owned oil company.

The DOJ/SEC’s interpretation of the “foreign official” element of an FCPA anti-bribery violation is well known by now – all employees of state-owned or state-controlled entities (SOEs), such as PDVSA, are “foreign officials” regardless of title or position.

Further, all employees of SOE wholly-owned subsidiaries are considered “foreign officials” under this interpretation. In fact, a business entity does not even need to be majority owned by a SOE for its employees to be considered “foreign officials” by DOJ/SEC (see the KBR/Halliburton enforcement action (see here paras 13-14) where officers and employees of Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) are deemed “foreign officials” despite the fact that NLNG is owned 51% by a consortium of private multinational oil companies (see here).

Applying DOJ/SEC’s untested and unchallenged interpretation to PDVSA can, well, let’s just say it can lead to some rather weird results.

Why?

One of PDVSA’s wholly-owned subsidiaries is Citgo Petroleum Corporation (“CITGO”) (see here).

Thus, under DOJ/SEC’s view, all CITGO employees are “foreign officials” under the FCPA regardless of title or position.

This despite the fact that CITGO is a Delaware corporation based in Houston.

In other words, CITGO is both subject to the FCPA and all of its employees (under the DOJ/SEC interpretation) are “foreign officials.” How’s that for a little mental gymnastics.

At the very least, this gives readers something to think about the next time they attend a ball game at Fenway Park (see here).

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes