Earlier this week, Orthofix International N.V. (“Orthofix”), a limited liability orthopedic medical device company formed under the law of Netherlands Antilles with administrative offices in Lewisville, Texas and common stock traded on Nasdaq, agreed to resolve DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions. The conduct at issue focuses on Promeca S.A. de C.V., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Orthofix headquartered in Mexico City. According to the SEC, “during the relevant time period, Promeca was subject to Orthofix’s control, including the implementation of internal controls at Promeca” and the “financial results of Promeca were a component of the consolidated financial statements included in Orthofix’s filings with the SEC.’
Total fines and penalties in the Orthofix enforcement action were approximately $7.4 million ($2.2 million via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement, and $5.2 million via a settled SEC civil complaint).
The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information against Orthofix resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement.
The specifics of the DOJ’s case against Orthofix are not known at this time as the Eastern District of Texas, where a criminal information has been filed, has a standing order that criminal informations remain sealed until a plea is entered in open court. Nevertheless, Orthofix did file the deferred prosecution agreement as an exhibit (see here ) to its recent SEC filing. The DPA indicates that the information concerns one count of violating the FCPA’s internal control provisions.
The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement based on the following factors: “(a) following reports of bribery by [Promeca] employees … Orthofix made a timely and voluntary disclosure to the Department and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) about potential misconduct; (b) Orthofix conducted an investigation concerning bribery and related misconduct; (c) Orthofix reported its findings to the Department and the SEC; (d) the extent of the conduct; (e) Orthofix undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake further remedial measures, as may be necessary under [the DPA]; and (f) Orthofix agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Orthofix’s current and former employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries relating to violations of the FCPA.”
Pursuant to the DPA, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the conduct at issue was $2.22 – $4.44 million. The DPA states as follows. “Orthofix and the DOJ agree that this fine is appropriate given the nature and extent of Orthofix’s cooperation in this matter and the remediation undertaken by Orthofix.” Of note, the guidelines calculation indicate that “an individual within high-level personnel condoned or was willfully ignorant of the offense.” Although a compliance monitor was not required pursuant to the DPA, Orthofix did agree that it will report to the DOJ annually during the term of the DPA regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance measures required under the DPA.
As is customary in FCPA DPA’s, Orthofix agreed not to make any public statement contradicting its acceptance of responsibility for the conduct at issue in the DPA.
The SEC’s settled civil complaint (here ) against Orthofix alleges, in summary fashion, as follows.
“This matter involves violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA by Orthofix, an orthopedic medical device company. From 2003 to 2010, [Promeca], repeatedly paid bribes totaling approximately $317,000 to Mexican officials in order to obtain and retain sales contracts from Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (“IMSS”) [here ], the Mexican government-owned healthcare and social services institution. Promeca employees referred to these payments as ‘chocolates.’ These improper payments, falsely recorded on the company’s books as cash advances to Promeca executives or training and promotions expenses, generated approximately $8.7 million in gross revenues for Orthofix and resulted in illicit net profits of about $4.9 million.”
According to the SEC, Promeca sold Orthofix’s products to government and private hospitals in Mexico and “approximately 60% of Promeca’s revenues came from IMSS, the Mexican government-0wned medical care and social services provider.”
Under the heading “bribery scheme” the complaint alleges as follows.
“From at least 2003 to 2007, … Promeca, regularly paid bribes to IMSS hospital employees in the form of cash and/or gifts, in order to secure sales contracts from IMSS hospitals. The bribe amounts, referred to internally at Promeca as ‘chocolates,’ ranged from 5% to 10% of the collected sales for the hospital in question. In order to obtain cash for the illicit payments, Promeca executives wrote checks to themselves, which they justified as cash advances. They later submitted falsified receipts for imaginary expenses including meals and new car tires, which were accounted for in Promeca’s books and records. As the bribes increased, it became difficult for Promeca executives to invent new receipts to justify the advances. Eventually, the bribes became too large, forcing the Promeca executives to devise another justification methodology, and hence they began falsely accounting for the payments as promotional and training expenses. Because of the bribery scheme, Promeca’s training and promotional expenses were significantly over budget. In one instance, Orthofix launched an inquiry into these expenses, but did not control them. In 2008, IMSS began purchasing medical products under a new national tender system, where a special IMSS committee, rather than the individual hospitals, selected the winning bidder who would cover IMSS nationally. Promeca then established a new system of bribery to ensure that it was awarded the business under the national tender system. To achieve this, Promeca made payments to three front companies, which were controlled by certain IMSS officials. Promeca won the national tenders for 2008 and 2009 and paid the front companies 5% and 3%, respectively, of the collected sales from those tenders. The front companies concealed these bribes by submitting false invoices, characterizing them as training and other promotional expenses that Promeca never received. Promeca falsely recorded the bribes on its books as payments for training courses, meetings and congresses, and promotional costs. In addition, between 2003 and 2010, Promeca expended approximately $80,050 on gifts and travel packages, some of which were intended to corruptly influence IMSS employees in order to retain their business. The various gifts included vacation packages, televisions, laptops, appliances, and in one case, the lease of a Volkswagen Jetta. These payments were falsely accounted for in Promeca’s books and records as promotional and training expenses. In all, the improper payments, totaling about $317,000, generated approximately $8.7 million in gross revenues and resulted in illicit net profits to Orthofix of about $4.9 million.”
Under the heading, “Orthofix’s Remedial Measures to Prevent Corrupt Payments” the complaint states as follows.
“Prior to the discovery of the bribery schemes, Orthofix did not have an effective FCPA compliance policy or FCPA-related training. Although Orthofix disseminated some code of ethics and anti-bribery training to Promeca, the materials were only in English, and it was unlikely that Promeca employees understood them as most Promeca employees spoke minimal English. [For a recent FCPAmericas post on this issue, see here ]. Additionally, even though Promeca’s training and promotional expenses, that included the improper payments, were often over budget, Orthofix did very little to investigate or diminish the excessive spending. Upon discovery of the bribe payments through a Promeca executive, Orthofix immediately self-reported the matter to the Commission staff, and conducted an internal investigation. Orthofix also implemented significant remedial measures. Specifically, it terminated the Promeca executives that orchestrated the bribery scheme, wound up Promeca’s operations, enhanced its overall FCPA compliance program with mandatory annual FCPA training for all employees and third-party agents, expanded internal audit functions, and implemented other internal control measures.”
Based on the above allegations, the SEC complaint charges violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions. The SEC complaint states as follows. “Orthofix’s subsidiary characterized their payments to IMSS as cash advances or training and promotional expenses even though those payments were used as bribes. Orthofix’s books and records did not reflect the true nature of those payments. Orthofix failed to implement adequate internal controls to prevent the bribery or to ensure that transaction were properly recorded. Orthofix failed to implement an FCPA compliance and training program commensurate with the extent of its international operations and particularly its ownership of Promeca, a subsidiary that had substantial sales to government-owned enterprises. Further, even though Orthofix knew that Promeca’s training and promotional expenses were often over budget, it did nothing to act on the red flag.”
As stated in the SEC’s release (here ), Orthofix consented to a final judgment ordering it to pay $4,983,644 in disgorgement and more than $242,000 in prejudgment interest. As noted in the release, the final judgment would permanently enjoin the company from violating the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA and Orthofix also agreed to certain undertakings, including monitoring its FCPA compliance program and reporting back to the SEC for a two-year period.
In the release, Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated as follows. “Once bribery has been likened to a box of chocolates, you know a corruptive culture has permeated your business. Orthofix’s lax oversight allowed its subsidiary to illicitly spend more than $300,000 to sweeten the deals with Mexican officials.”
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the Orthofix enforcement action is that neither the DOJ or SEC charged the company with FCPA anti-bribery violations despite allegations that, given the enforcement agencies’ theories, have typically resulted in such violations.
Peter Spivack (Hogan Lovells – here ) represented Orthofix.