Checking in on Wal-Mart, an enforcement action that flew under the radar from beginning to end, a guilty plea in the U.K., and is sex a thing of value? It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Various reports this week reported on the expansion of Wal-Mart’s FCPA probe. As many readers know, this is hardly surprising as most FCPA inquiries result in the “where else” question as indicated in this  prior guest post. Even if the enforcement agencies do not actually ask the “where else” question, a company knows it will eventually be asked and will thus likely conduct a broader review of certain other FCPA high-risk jurisdictions not part of the original inquiry on its own initiative and to demonstrate to the enforcement agencies its committment to compliance and its cooperation.
This  June 12th letter from Elijah Cummings (D-MD, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Henry Waxman (D-CA, Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce) to Wal-Mart CEO Michael Dukes references that Wal-Mart’s review has expanded beyond Mexico to also include Brazil, China, South Africa and India. Indeed, the letter references that Wal-Mart is “conducting a worldwide assessment of the company’s anti-corruption policies” something Wal-Mart indicated it was already doing. In short, Wal-Mart’s FCPA inquiry is following a typical path.
In the letter, Cummings and Waxman again express disappointment as to Wal-Mart’s cooperation in their own Congressional probe. For more on Cummings and Waxman’s interest in Wal-Mart, see this  prior post (and links therein).
Meanwhile on the civil litigation front, a 12th lawsuit has been filed in the wake of April’s New York Times story. As noted in this release from the New York City Comptroller, New York City Pension Funds filed a shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Chancery Court alleging “that Wal-Mart’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duty to the company and its shareholders by failing to properly handle credible claims of the bribery allegations and attempting to cover up details of the scandal.”
Under the Radar
This  post from March 2011 highlighted how criminal charges against Manual Salvoch flew under the radar in that the DOJ did not issue a press release announcing the charges and the enforcement action appeared to escape coverage elsewhere. Salvoch is the former CFO of LatiNode and was charged in connection with payments to Hondutel (see here  – according to the charging documents a state-owned telecommunications company in Honduras responsible for providing telecommunications services in Honduras). The Hondutel payments also resulted in criminal charges against Jorge Granados (the founder and former CEO and Chairman of the Board of LatiNode), Manuel Caceres (a former Vice President of Business Development) and Juan Vasquez (a former senior commercial executive).
This  prior post highlights the sentences of Granados, Caceres and Vasquez.
Last week, Salvoch was sentenced by Judge Paul Huck (S.D. of Florida) t0 10 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Just like the beginning, the end of the Salvoch enforcement action also flew under the radar.
The final sentencing scorecard in the LatiNode individual prosecutions is thus as follows.
Granados – 46 months
Caceres – 23 months
Vasequez – 3 years probation
Salvoch – 10 months.
Previous posts (here  and here ) discussed charges on both sides of the Atlantic against Paul Jennings, the former CEO of Innospec. Earlier this week, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here ) that Jennings pleaded guilty to the following charges: “Two allegations of conspiracy to corrupt in that he gave or agreed to give corrupt payments to public officials and other agents of the Government of Indonesia (between 14 February 2002 and 31 December 2008) and Iraq (between 1 January 2003 and 31 January 2008) as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from that Government for the supply of its products including Tetraethyl Lead by Innospec.”
As noted in this  previous post, in March 2010, Innospec resolved enforcement actions on both sides of the Atlantic based on the same core set of facts.
Thing of Value?
At its core, the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions require “anything of value” to a “foreign official” to “obtain or retain business.”
This  recent Reuters story concerning an employee of Oracle’s business unit in Singapore has a “foreign official” (the former head of the city-state’s anti-narcotics agency) and the article describes that the thing of value was provided to the “foreign official” as “an inducement to help further the firm’s business interest.”
The thing of value?
Can sex be a thing of value under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions? I guess it depends, it’s a factual issue.
On that note, a good weekend to all.