Top Menu

Archive | Travel and Entertainment

Two For Tuesday In FCPA Enforcement Land – Akamai Technologies

akami

Just when you think you’ve seen all possible combinations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, along comes yesterday’s “two for Tuesday” in which the SEC announced in the same press release two non-prosecution agreements against two separate companies and the DOJ simultaneously released two so-called “declination” letters against the same two companies.

This post highlights the enforcement action against Akamai Technologies and today’s first post highlights the enforcement action against Nortek Inc.. From there future posts will highlight issues to consider from the enforcement actions (and there are many including the question of just what charges – based on the SEC’s statement of facts – did the DOJ actually decline?”).

Continue Reading

Two For Tuesday In FCPA Enforcement Land – First Up Nortek

nortek

Just when you think you’ve seen all possible combinations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, along comes yesterday’s “two for Tuesday” in which the SEC announced in the same press release two non-prosecution agreements against two separate companies and the DOJ simultaneously released two so-called “declination” letters against the same two companies.

This post highlights the enforcement action against Nortek Inc. and a second post today highlights the enforcement action against Akamai Technologies. From there future posts will highlight issues to consider from the enforcement actions (and there are many including the question of just what charges – based on the SEC’s statement of facts – did the DOJ actually decline?”).

Continue Reading

Novartis Coughs Up $25 Million To Resolve FCPA Enforcement Action Based On Conduct Of Indirect Chinese Subsidiaries

Novartis

What happens when a Swiss corporation, with over 120,000 employees, has two indirect Chinese subsidiaries and a few employees of those subsidiaries, who concealed their conduct from the parent corporation, allegedly provided various things of value (such as an excursion to Niagara falls, spa and sauna sessions, and cover charges to a strip club) to various Chinese healthcare professionals?

Why of course, $25 million to the U.S. treasury because the Swiss corporation has shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Yesterday, the SEC announced this Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Novartis.

By my count, it is the 22nd FCPA enforcement against a healthcare related company (i.e. pharma, medical device, etc.) premised on the enforcement theory (regardless of whether the action was resolved “merely” through books and records and internal controls issues) that employees of certain foreign health care systems are “foreign officials” under the FCPA and thus occupy a status similar to Presidents and Prime Ministers and other bona fide government officials.

Continue Reading

Olympus Latin America Pays $22.8 Million In Latest FCPA Enforcement Action To Allege That Health Care Professionals Are “Foreign Officials”

olympus

Earlier this week, the DOJ announced (as part of a much larger enforcement action) a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act action against Olympus Latin American Inc. (OLA), a Miami-headquartered company that distributes medical imaging equipment in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America for Olympus Corporation (a Japanese company).

This post highlights the OLA enforcement action (the latest FCPA enforcement based on the theory that certain health care professionals are “foreign officials” under the FCPA) in which the DOJ charged the company in this criminal complaint with conspiring to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. The charges were resolved via this deferred prosecution agreement in which OLA agreed to pay $22.8 million.

According to the charging documents, from 2006 to 2011 OLA provided approximately $3 million in “hundreds of unlawful payments” to publicly employed healthcare professionals in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, and Costa Rica to “induce the purchase of Olympus products, influence public tenders, or prevent public institutions from purchasing or converting to the technology of competitors.” According to the charging documents, OLA recognized approximately $7.5 million in profits as a result of the alleged unlawful payments.

Continue Reading

Qualcomm Caves – Pays $7.5 Million In Connection With Alleged Improper Hiring And Other Practices In China

qualcomm

It was a “two for Tuesday” yesterday as the DOJ announced a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (and related) enforcement action against Olympus Latin America Inc. and related entities and the SEC announced an FCPA enforcement action against Qualcomm.

This post highlights the Qualcomm action and a future post will highlight the Olympus action.

FCPA Professor has been following Qualcomm’s FCPA scrutiny since it was announced in January 2012 (see here).

Qualcomm maintained then that it “believes that it is in compliance with the requirements of the FCPA.” As highlighted in this prior post, things escalated in March 2014 when Qualcomm disclosed that it had received a Wells Notice from the SEC. As noted in the prior post, Wells Notices are rare in the the FCPA context for the simple reason that few issuers actually publicly push back against the SEC. Shortly after receiving the Wells Notice, Qualcomm disclosed that it responded to the SEC “explaining why the Company believes it has not violated the FCPA and therefore enforcement action is not warranted.”

As highlighted in this prior post, Qualcomm disclosed in November 2015 that “the DOJ notified the Company that it was terminating its [related] investigation and would not pursue charges in this matter.” As to the SEC investigation, Qualcomm continued to maintain that it had not violated the FCPA and that an enforcement action was not warranted.

However, when push came to shove the party holding the stick prevailed and Qualcomm caved by agreeing to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty via an SEC administrative order in which the company neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes