Top Menu

Understanding Issuers

The FCPA (both the antibribery provisions and the books and records and internal control provisions) apply to issuers.

That was easy.

What is not so easy is figuring out just which companies are issuers. The FCPA defines an issuer as when a company “has a class of securities registered” with the SEC pursuant to the securities laws or when a company is “required to file reports” with the SEC pursuant to the securities laws.

These terms can be confusing, particularly when talking about non-U.S. based companies.

In connection with both the BAE and Technip matters, there was some mention of a potential SEC angle despite the fact that neither company currently has shares traded on a U.S. exchange.

Miller & Chevalier’s release in connection with the BAE matter (here) states:

“The U.S. pleadings detail significant issues with BAE’s compliance program and internal controls, yet the pleadings did not allege substantive violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has yet to bring an action against BAE. The absence of SEC charges may reflect a lack of SEC jurisdiction because BAE was not subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act during the relevant time period, which is required for FCPA accounting provision jurisdiction. According to press accounts, however, the SEC may have investigated BAE in connection with the al-Yamamah arms sale. The status of this possible investigation remains unclear.”

Technip’s release (here) speaks of both the DOJ and SEC involvement in resolution of that matter.

Enter James Tillen (here), one of the co-authors of the Miller & Chevalier piece, to help explain SEC jurisdiction in these two similar, yet different matters.

Here is what he had to say.

“We specifically note in the Client Alert that the absence of an SEC resolution was likely due to the fact that the SEC did not have jurisdiction: ‘The absence of SEC charges may reflect a lack of SEC jurisdiction because BAE was not subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act during the relevant time period, which is required for FCPA accounting provision jurisdiction.’ Press accounts reported that the SEC was investigating at some point so it was worth raising the question of why no SEC resolution (especially since the DOJ effectively brought an internal controls case).

I looked quite closely at the issue of whether BAE was an issuer and concluded the following:

The definition of issuer includes any entity “which has a class of securities registered pursuant to” Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or “which is required to file reports under” Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(a), 78c(a)(8), 781, 78o(d). During the relevant time period, BAE Systems plc’s ADRs were sold in the United States Over The Counter (“OTC”), and not on any national securities exchanges, such as the NYSE, which require registration with the SEC. In fact, BAE has filed for an exemption from registration under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act since at least 2002. See List of Foreign Issuers That Have Submitted Information Under the Exemption Relating to Certain Foreign Securities, SEC Release No. 34-45855 (May 1, 2002) (BAE listed as British Aerospace plc), SEC Release No. 34-49846 (June 10, 2004), and SEC Release No. 34-51893 (June 28, 2005). Pursuant to this exemption, BAE must provide information to the SEC on a yearly basis by completing Form F-6. See Rule 12g3-2. However, BAE is exempt from the annual and other periodic reports under Section 15(d) of the Act. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.15d-3. Based on these considerations, it would appear that BAE is not subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act and therefore not an “issuer” for purposes of FCPA jurisdiction.”

In contrast, Tillen stated that Technip “had American Depository Shares listed on NYSE from at least 2001 until 2007. Thereafter, it delisted (see here and here) and now only trades on the OTC (over-the-counter) market. When it was listed, Technip was an ‘issuer’ for purposes of the FCPA.”

*****

Thanks for the explanation James.

As my mentor was fond of saying … “at least now I am confused on a higher level.”

Friday Roundup

Some FCPA news to pass along on this Friday.

SFO Defends BAE Settlement

Richard Alderman, the Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) recently defended the SFO settlement with BAE (see here).

Among other things, Alderman argued that any suggestion BAE “got off lightly” ignores “London’s contribution in enabling the U.S. to impose a $400 million fine.”

Point taken.

Alderman then says that the DOJ “would not have achieved what they achieved without [the SFO] and [the SFO] would not have achieved what [the SFO] achieved without [the DOJ].”

Point not taken.

What actually did the DOJ and SFO achieve in the BAE matter? What is achieved when a company settles a case invovling allegations of worldwide bribery, per the allegations in the public documents, WITHOUT being held accountable bribery?

What is achieved when you charge BAE’s agent (presumably based on evidence that the following did occur) for “conspiracy to corrupt” and for “conspiring with others to give or agree to give corrupt payments […] to unknown officials and other agents of certain Eastern and Central European governments, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from those governments for the supply of goods to them, namely SAAB/Gripen fighter jets, by BAE Systems Plc” and then a few days later withdraw the charges and state “[t]his decision brings to an end the SFO’s investigations into BAE’s defence contracts.”

As to this issue, Alderman stated that “the public interet lay in drawing a line under the whole investigation.”

The article notes that “two campaigning groups said they would launch a legal challenge to Mr. Alderman’s decision, saying it failed to reflect the scale and scope of the bribery allegations relating to BAE’s network of hundreds of agents on four continents.” If anyone knows who these groups are, or the legal framework (including standing) under U.K. law to allow such a challenge, please do share.

For prior posts on BAE, includng the DOJ’s non-bribery, bribery allegations see here.

Alderman did also suggest that additional joints DOJ/SEC settlements are being negotiated.

The Pipes May Soon Burst

Ocassionaly, I have covered “cases” reportedly in the FCPA pipeline (see here). Set forth below is some “pre-news” about some coming attractions.

Given the above, it seems fitting to start with KBR, Inc.

KBR, Inc.

Here’s what Halliburton had to say earlier this week regarding its exposure via M.W. Kellogg / KBR for the SFO piece of the investigation into Bonney Island (Nigeria)(pgs. 35-36, 63-64). For a prior post see here.

Pride International Inc.

Earlier this week, Pride disclosed (here) that:

“it has accrued $56.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 in anticipation of a possible resolution with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential liability under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. {…] The accrual in the fourth quarter 2009 represents the company’s best estimate of potential fines, penalties and disgorgement related to settlement of the matter with the DOJ and SEC. The monetary sanctions ultimately paid by the company to resolve these issues, whether imposed on the company or agreed to by settlement, may exceed the amount of the accrual.”

For prior posts about Pride see here.

Innospec, Inc.

Here is what Innospec had to say about its on-going FCPA matter:

“”We have made substantial progress, but not yet completed, negotiations of final settlements of the Oil for Food Program and FCPA investigations, in either the U.S. or United Kingdom. However, we have charged a further $21.9 million in the quarter, based on the status of ongoing discussions, to bring the total amount accrued to $40.2 million. The Company will make no further comments on the ongoing proceedings.”

Alcatel-Lucent

Alcatel-Lucent recently provided (here) details (see pg. 112) on its FCPA (and other) exposure concerning conduct in Costa Rica and other places. In pertinent part the company stated:

“As previously disclosed in its public filings, Alcatel-Lucent has engaged in settlement discussions with the DOJ and the SEC with regard to the ongoing FCPA investigations. These discussions have resulted in December 2009 in agreements in principle with the staffs of each of the agencies. There can be no assurances, however, that final agreements will be reached with the agencies or accepted in court. If finalized, the agreements would relate to alleged violations of the FCPA involving several countries, including Costa Rica, Taiwan, and Kenya. Under the agreement in principle with the SEC, Alcatel-Lucent would enter into a consent decree under which Alcatel-Lucent would neither admit nor deny violations of the antibribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA and would be enjoined from future violations of U.S. securities laws, pay U.S.
$45.4 million in disgorgement of profits and prejudgment interest and agree to a three-year French anticorruption compliance monitor to evaluate in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree (unless any specific provision therein is expressly determined by the French Ministry of Justice to violate French law)
the effectiveness of Alcatel-Lucent’s internal controls, record-keeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. Under the agreement in principle with the DOJ, Alcatel-Lucent would enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), charging Alcatel-Lucent with violations of the internal controls and
books and records provisions of the FCPA, and Alcatel-Lucent would pay a total criminal fine of U.S. $ 92 million—payable in four installments over the course of three years. In addition, three Alcatel-Lucent subsidiaries—Alcatel-Lucent France, Alcatel-Lucent Trade and Alcatel Centroamerica—would each plead guilty to
violations of the FCPA’s antibribery, books and records and internal accounting controls provisions. The agreement with the DOJ would also contain provisions relating to a three-year French anticorruption compliance monitor. If Alcatel-Lucent fully complies with the terms of the DPA, the DOJ would dismiss the charges upon
conclusion of the three-year term.”

For the trials and tribulations on both sides of this corporate hyphen see here and here.

Thirsty for more? OK, here is the last one.

Maxwell Technologies Inc.

Here is what the company’s CEO had to say about its $9.3 million accural for a potential FCPA settlement:

“Unfortunately, all this good news is tempered by the GAAP required $9.3 million accrual we recorded in Q4 for the potential settlement of FCPA violations in connection with the sale of high-voltage capacitor products in China by our Swiss subsidiary. As we reported previously, after we became aware of questionable payments made to an independent sales agent in China, we disclosed that discovery and initiated an internal review and we have been voluntarily sharing information with the SEC and the Justice Department.”

See also here.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Some FCPA news to pass along on this Friday.

SFO Defends BAE Settlement

Richard Alderman, the Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) recently defended the SFO settlement with BAE (see here).

Among other things, Alderman argued that any suggestion BAE “got off lightly” ignores “London’s contribution in enabling the U.S. to impose a $400 million fine.”

Point taken.

Alderman then says that the DOJ “would not have achieved what they achieved without [the SFO] and [the SFO] would not have achieved what [the SFO] achieved without [the DOJ].”

Point not taken.

What actually did the DOJ and SFO achieve in the BAE matter? What is achieved when a company settles a case invovling allegations of worldwide bribery, per the allegations in the public documents, WITHOUT being held accountable bribery?

What is achieved when you charge BAE’s agent (presumably based on evidence that the following did occur) for “conspiracy to corrupt” and for “conspiring with others to give or agree to give corrupt payments […] to unknown officials and other agents of certain Eastern and Central European governments, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria as inducements to secure, or as rewards for having secured, contracts from those governments for the supply of goods to them, namely SAAB/Gripen fighter jets, by BAE Systems Plc” and then a few days later withdraw the charges and state “[t]his decision brings to an end the SFO’s investigations into BAE’s defence contracts.”

As to this issue, Alderman stated that “the public interet lay in drawing a line under the whole investigation.”

The article notes that “two campaigning groups said they would launch a legal challenge to Mr. Alderman’s decision, saying it failed to reflect the scale and scope of the bribery allegations relating to BAE’s network of hundreds of agents on four continents.” If anyone knows who these groups are, or the legal framework (including standing) under U.K. law to allow such a challenge, please do share.

For prior posts on BAE, includng the DOJ’s non-bribery, bribery allegations see here.

Alderman did also suggest that additional joints DOJ/SEC settlements are being negotiated.

The Pipes May Soon Burst

Ocassionaly, I have covered “cases” reportedly in the FCPA pipeline (see here). Set forth below is some “pre-news” about some coming attractions.

Given the above, it seems fitting to start with KBR, Inc.

KBR, Inc.

Here’s what Halliburton had to say earlier this week regarding its exposure via M.W. Kellogg / KBR for the SFO piece of the investigation into Bonney Island (Nigeria)(pgs. 35-36, 63-64). For a prior post see here.

Pride International Inc.

Earlier this week, Pride disclosed (here) that:

“it has accrued $56.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 in anticipation of a possible resolution with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential liability under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. {…] The accrual in the fourth quarter 2009 represents the company’s best estimate of potential fines, penalties and disgorgement related to settlement of the matter with the DOJ and SEC. The monetary sanctions ultimately paid by the company to resolve these issues, whether imposed on the company or agreed to by settlement, may exceed the amount of the accrual.”

For prior posts about Pride see here.

Innospec, Inc.

Here is what Innospec had to say about its on-going FCPA matter:

“”We have made substantial progress, but not yet completed, negotiations of final settlements of the Oil for Food Program and FCPA investigations, in either the U.S. or United Kingdom. However, we have charged a further $21.9 million in the quarter, based on the status of ongoing discussions, to bring the total amount accrued to $40.2 million. The Company will make no further comments on the ongoing proceedings.”

Alcatel-Lucent

Alcatel-Lucent recently provided (here) details (see pg. 112) on its FCPA (and other) exposure concerning conduct in Costa Rica and other places. In pertinent part the company stated:

“As previously disclosed in its public filings, Alcatel-Lucent has engaged in settlement discussions with the DOJ and the SEC with regard to the ongoing FCPA investigations. These discussions have resulted in December 2009 in agreements in principle with the staffs of each of the agencies. There can be no assurances, however, that final agreements will be reached with the agencies or accepted in court. If finalized, the agreements would relate to alleged violations of the FCPA involving several countries, including Costa Rica, Taiwan, and Kenya. Under the agreement in principle with the SEC, Alcatel-Lucent would enter into a consent decree under which Alcatel-Lucent would neither admit nor deny violations of the antibribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA and would be enjoined from future violations of U.S. securities laws, pay U.S.
$45.4 million in disgorgement of profits and prejudgment interest and agree to a three-year French anticorruption compliance monitor to evaluate in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree (unless any specific provision therein is expressly determined by the French Ministry of Justice to violate French law)
the effectiveness of Alcatel-Lucent’s internal controls, record-keeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. Under the agreement in principle with the DOJ, Alcatel-Lucent would enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), charging Alcatel-Lucent with violations of the internal controls and
books and records provisions of the FCPA, and Alcatel-Lucent would pay a total criminal fine of U.S. $ 92 million—payable in four installments over the course of three years. In addition, three Alcatel-Lucent subsidiaries—Alcatel-Lucent France, Alcatel-Lucent Trade and Alcatel Centroamerica—would each plead guilty to
violations of the FCPA’s antibribery, books and records and internal accounting controls provisions. The agreement with the DOJ would also contain provisions relating to a three-year French anticorruption compliance monitor. If Alcatel-Lucent fully complies with the terms of the DPA, the DOJ would dismiss the charges upon
conclusion of the three-year term.”

For the trials and tribulations on both sides of this corporate hyphen see here and here.

Thirsty for more? OK, here is the last one.

Maxwell Technologies Inc.

Here is what the company’s CEO had to say about its $9.3 million accural for a potential FCPA settlement:

“Unfortunately, all this good news is tempered by the GAAP required $9.3 million accrual we recorded in Q4 for the potential settlement of FCPA violations in connection with the sale of high-voltage capacitor products in China by our Swiss subsidiary. As we reported previously, after we became aware of questionable payments made to an independent sales agent in China, we disclosed that discovery and initiated an internal review and we have been voluntarily sharing information with the SEC and the Justice Department.”

See also here.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Africa Sting – Update

Yesterday was a busy day in Judge Leon’s packed courtroom in Washington D.C.

For a colorful description of what transpired see here for Christopher Matthew’s piece at Main Justice. See here for a Reuters piece.

Here are the highlights.

Judge Leon remains skeptical of the government’s assertion that all 22 defendants were in one grand conspiracy. According to the reports, Judge Leon read all of the indictments and has “zero sense that there was an omnibus grand conspiracy.” Judge Leon reportedly told the DOJ that “what you think is so transparent is not” and he urged the DOJ to “take a step back” given that the DOJ may be so “close to trees that it can’t see the forest.”

Defense lawyers are troubled by the lack of evidence turned over by the government concerning Richard Bistrong (Individual 1 in the indictments)(see here). One defense lawyer is quoted as saying, “this is an entrapment case […] we need to know more about Bistrong.”

Future dates to keep in mind are: March 10 (when the government must turn over all of its evidence concerning Bistrong) and March 22 (when the government must decide whether to consolidate the cases into one conspiracy). On that issue, Judge Leon again unexpressed an unwillingness to conduct a 22 defendant trial and the DOJ is reportedly in “disposition” talks with some of the defendants.

As previously noted, whether guilty or innocent, there is tremendous pressure on individual criminal defendants in multi-party cases to plead and cooperate in the government’s prosecution of others given the “juicy carrots” that are offered by the sentencing guidelines for such “flipping.”

Africa Sting – The Lawyers

Christopher Matthews over at Main Justice has a thorough piece (here) about the lawyers representing the Africa Sting defendants.

The lawyers in this high-profile case include an eclectic mix of solo practitioners, small criminal defense firms, and large firms which substantial FCPA expertise. The lawyers include a former U.S. attorney, several former prosecutors, and firm with a public website www.entrapped.com. (See here for prior posts regarding potential entrapment issues in this case).

Lawyers for the Africa Sting defendants are due back in court tomorrow.

While respectful of the obvious human dimension of this case, the Africa Sting case could not have come at a better time for FCPA practitioners, which tend to be employed by large law firms – although not exclusively.

The upside from this case is perhaps more indirect than being directly involved in the actual case. The Africa Sting case has received mounds of media attention and notoriety in sectors of the economy that tend not to have FCPA compliance and risk assessment on the to-do list. If nothing more, the Africa Sting case has raised public consciousness of the FCPA and has nudged certain businesses to pick up the phone and talk to an FCPA practitioner.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes