Top Menu

Navigation

Like A Kid In A Candy Store

By on February 2, 2015 in Alcoa, Bio-Rad, Corrupt Intent, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Non-Prosecution Agreement, Obtain or Retain Business, Parent – Subsidiary Issues, SEC, Travel and Entertainment, Voluntary Disclosure, Year in Review 2014
Kid in Candy Store

Like every year around this time, I feel like a kid in a candy store given the number of FCPA year in reviews hitting my inbox.  This post highlights various FCPA or related publications that caught my eye.

Reading the below publications is recommended and should find their way to your reading stack.  However, be warned.  The divergent enforcement statistics contained in them (a result of various creative counting methods) are likely to make you dizzy at times and as to certain issues.

Given the increase in FCPA Inc. statistical information and the growing interest in empirical FCPA-related research, I again highlight the need for an FCPA lingua franca (see here for the prior post), including adoption of the “core” approach to FCPA enforcement statistics (see here for the prior post), an approach endorsed by even the DOJ (see here), as well as commonly used by others outside the FCPA context (see here)

Debevoise & Plimpton

The firm’s monthly FCPA Update is consistently a quality read.  The most recent issue is a year in review and the following caught my eye.

“The government’s pressure on companies to assist in investigating and prosecuting individuals raises significant challenges for in-house legal and compliance personnel as they work to navigate the potentially conflicting interests in anti-bribery compliance and internal investigations.  This pressure has produced legitimate concerns that a failure to self-report could, in and of itself, be met with, or be the cause for imposing, monetary penalties.  Although the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide for a reduction in fines for a heightened level of cooperation, outside of a narrow range of arenas (such as where duties to self-report are imposed on U.S. government contractors), the government generally lacks any statutory basis for imposing financial penalties against companies for the failure to self-report potential misconduct.  Since there is no legal obligation to self-report, it is our view that the government should exercise caution when discussing bases for monetary penalties and should rely solely on laws passed by Congress and the Sentencing Guidelines provisions that properly draw their authority from a duly-passed statute.  It would be a disturbing trend indeed were the government to begin to impose monetary penalties for failing to self-report where there is no legal obligation to do so.  The actions by U.S. regulators in the coming year will continue to warrant close scrutiny …”.

Gibson Dunn

The firm’s Year-End FCPA Update is a quality read year after year.  It begins as follows.

“Within the last decade, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has become a juggernaut of U.S. enforcement agencies.  Ten years ago, we published our first report on the state-of-play in FCPA enforcement.  Although prosecutions were at the time quite modest–our first update noted only five enforcement actions in 2004–we observed an upward trend in disclosed investigations and advised our readership that enhanced government attention to the then-underutilized statute was likely.  From the elevated plateau of 2015, we stand by our prediction. In addition to the traditional calendar-year observations of our year-end updates, this tenth-anniversary edition looks back and analyzes five trends in FCPA enforcement we have observed over the last decade.”

The update flushes out the following interesting tidbit from the Bio-Rad enforcement action.

“[A noteworthy aspect] of the Bio-Rad settlement is that it is the first DOJ FCPA corporate settlement agreement to require executives to certify, prior to the end of the [post-enforcement action] reporting period, that the company has met its disclosure obligations.  As noted above in the Ten-Year Trend section, post-resolution reporting obligations, including an affirmative obligation to disclose new misconduct, have long been a common feature of FCPA resolutions.  But Bio-Rad’s is the first agreement to insert a provision requiring that prior to the conclusion of the supervisory period, the company CEO and CFO “certify to [DOJ] that the Company has met its disclosure obligations,” subject to penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.”

Gibson Dunn also released (here) its always informative “Year-End Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).”  The update:  “(1) summarizes highlights from the DPAs and NPAs of 2014; (2) discusses several post settlement considerations, including protections for independent monitor work product and post settlementterm revisions; (3) analyzes a potential trend in the judicial oversight of DPAs; and(4) addresses recent developments in the United Kingdom, where the Deferred ProsecutionAgreements Code of Practice recently took effect.

According to the Update, there were 30 NPAs or DPAs entered into by the DOJ (29) or SEC (1) in 2014. (However, this figure includes two in the Alstom action and two in the HP action.  Thus, there were 27 unique instances of the DOJ using an NPA or DPA in 2014.  Of the 27 unique instances, 5 (19%) were in FCPA enforcement actions and the FCPA was the single largest source of NPAs and DPAs in 2014 in terms of specific statutory allegation.

The Gibson Dunn updates provides a thorough review of two pending cases in which federal court judges are wrestling with the issue of whether to approve of a DPA agreed to be the DOJ and a company.

Shearman & Sterling

The firm’s “Recent Trends and Patterns in Enforcement of the FCPA” is also another quality read year-after-year.

Of note from the publication:

“[W]hat may be the most interesting facet of the SEC’s current enforcement approach is the Commission’s shift in the latter half of 2014 in Timms to settle charges against individuals through administrative proceedings. This may come as no surprise, as the SEC has had difficulty successfully prosecuting individuals for violating the FCPA in previous years. Most recently, in early 2014, the SEC suffered a pair of setbacks in its enforcement actions against executives from Nobel Corp. and Magyar Telekom […] before the U.S. courts. Other cases, such as SEC v. Sharef (the SEC’s case against the Siemens executives) and SEC v. Clarke (which is currently the subject of a pending stay), have lingered in the S.D.N.Y. for significant periods of time without resolution.”

[…]

Obtain or Retain Business

Following the announcement of the SEC’s settlement with Layne Christensen over improper payments made to foreign officials in various African countries, we noted that the SEC’s approach to the “obtaining or retaining business” test in the FCPA appeared at odds with the Fifth Circuit’s 2007 opinion in United States v. Kay. Specifically, in Kay, the DOJ charged two executives of American Rice, Inc. for engaging in a scheme to pay Haitian customs officials bribes in exchange for accepting false shipping documents that under-reported the amount of rice onboard ocean-going barges. The result of the false shipping documents was to reduce the amount of customs duties and sales taxes that American Rice would have otherwise been forced to pay. While the court in Kay dismissed the defendants’ argument that the FCPA was only intended to cover bribes intended for “the award or renewal of contracts,” holding instead that the payment of bribes in exchange for reduced customs duties and sales taxes, the court added that in order to violate the FCPA, the prosecution must show that the reduced customs duties and sales taxes were in turned used “to assist in obtaining or retaining business” per the language of the FCPA. In short, the court in Kay held that while bribes paid exchange for the reduction of duties or taxes could violate the FCPA, they were not per se violations of the statue, and that the Department would have to show how the benefit derived from the reduced duties and taxes were used to obtain or retain business.

Fast forwarding to 2014 in Layne Christensen, the Houston-based global water management, construction, and drilling company, was forced to pay over $5 million in sanctions despite the fact that the SEC’s cease-and-desist order pleaded facts inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Kay. In its discussion of Layne Christensen’s alleged violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, the SEC only alleged that the company paid bribes to foreign officials in multiple African countries “in order to, among other things, obtain favorable tax treatment, customs clearance for its equipment, and a reduction of customs duties.” The SEC’s cease-and-desist made no reference to how these reduced costs were used to obtain or retain business, rendering the SEC’s charges facially deficient.

Layne Christensen is not, however, the first time the DOJ and SEC have brought similar FCPA charges against companies without alleging how reduced taxes and customs duties were used to obtain or retain business. In the Panalpina cases from 2010, a series of enforcement actions against various international oil and gas companies, the DOJ and SEC treated the exchange of bribes for reduced taxes and customs duties as per se violations of the FCPA. Even in the 2012 FCPA Guide the enforcement agencies make clear that “bribe payments made to secure favorable tax treatment, or to reduce or eliminate customs duties . . . satisfy the business purpose test.” Whether the DOJ’s and SEC’s approach to the “obtaining or retaining business” element of the FCPA stems from a misinterpretation of Kay or is an attempt to challenge the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, we are troubled by the lack of clarity in the DOJ’s and SEC’s approach as it ultimately disadvantages defendants who may otherwise be pressured to settle charges over conduct which does not necessarily constitute a crime.”

Parent/Subsidiary Liability

As noted in previous Trends & Patterns, over the past several years the SEC has engaged in the disconcerting practice of charging parent companies with anti-bribery violations based on the corrupt payments of their subsidiaries. In short, the SEC has adopted the position that corporate parents are subject to strict criminal liability not only for books & records violations (since it is the parent’s books ultimately at issue) but also for bribery violations by their subsidiaries regardless of whether the parent had any involvement or even knowledge of the subsidiaries’ illegal conduct. The SEC has subsequently continued this approach in Alcoa and Bio-Rad.

According to the charging documents, officials at two Alcoa subsidiaries arranged for various bribe payments to be made to Bahraini officials through the use of a consultant. The SEC acknowledged that there were “no findings that an officer, director or employee of Alcoa knowingly engaged in the bribe scheme” but it still charged the parent company with anti-bribery violations on the grounds that the subsidiary responsible for the bribery scheme was an agent of Alcoa at the time. The Commission’s tact is curious considering that it charged Alcoa with books and records and internal controls violations as well, making anti-bribery charges seemingly unnecessary. Moreover, it is noteworthy that in the parallel criminal action, the DOJ elected to directly charge Alcoa’s subsidiary with violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions instead of Alcoa’s corporate parent.

In Bio-Rad, the SEC’s cease-and-desist order alleged that the corporate parent was liable for violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions committed by the company’s corporate subsidiary in Russia, Vietnam, and Thailand. In order to impute the alleged wrongful conduct upon the corporate parent, the SEC relied heavily upon corporate officials’ willful blindness to a number of red flags arising from the alleged schemes in Russia, Vietnam, and Thailand. Nevertheless, even if certain officials from Bio-Rad’s corporate parent were aware of the bribery scheme, the SEC’s charges ignore the black-letter rule that in order to find a corporate parent liable for the acts of a subsidiary, it must first “pierce the corporate veil,” showing that the parent operated the subsidiary as an alter ego and paid no attention to the corporate form.

It is also interesting that much like the case of Alcoa, the DOJ’s criminal charges against Bio-Rad are notably distinct from the SEC’s. Specifically, while the DOJ charged Bio-Rad’s corporate parent with violating the FCPA, the Department elected to only charge the company with violations of the FCPA’s book-and-records and internal controls provisions, not the anti-bribery provisions like the SEC.

The SEC’s charging decisions in Alcoa and Bio-Rad are even more peculiar given the fact that the SEC took an entirely different approach in HP, Bruker, and Avon, where despite alleging largely analogous fact patterns, the SEC charged the parent companies in HP, Bruker, and Avon with violations of the FCPA’s books-and-records and internal controls provisions only. Much like Alcoa and Bio-Rad, all of the relevant acts of bribery in HP, Bruker, and Avon were committed by the company’s subsidiaries in Mexico, Poland, Russia (HP), and China (Bruker and Avon). The SEC’s decisions in Alcoa, Bio-Rad, HP, Bruker, and Avon to charge parent companies involved in largely analogous fact patterns with different FCPA violations raise ongoing questions as to consistency and predictability of the SEC’s approach to parent-subsidiary liability.”

WilmerHale

The firm’s FCPA alert states regarding the travel and entertainment enforcement actions from 2014.

“While most cases involving travel and entertainment historically have involved other allegedly corrupt conduct, it was notable this year that travel and entertainment was the focus of the conduct in some cases. … [T]his suggests that travel and entertainment should continue to be a focus of corporate compliance programs. Unfortunately, the settled cases give little guidance as to some of the gray areas that challenge compliance officers, such as the appropriate dollar amounts for business meals, or how much ancillary leisure activity is acceptable in the context of a business event. Perhaps most interesting about the recent cases is that the government’s charging papers in some cases seem to lack any direct evidence that the benefits provided were provided as a quid pro quo to obtain a specific favorable decision from the official. The cases seem to simply conclude that if there were benefits provided to a government decision maker, the benefits must have been improper. Whether such allegations would be sufficient to satisfy the FCPA’s “corruptly” standard in litigation remains to be seen.”

Regarding the lack of transparency in FCPA enforcement, the alert states:

“[T]here still remains legitimate debate about whether the amount of credit that companies receive for voluntary disclosures is sufficient, especially when compared to companies that cooperate but do not self-report. One important factor that is often left out of the debate on this topic is the “credit” that is not visible in the public settlement documents but is nonetheless often informally received by companies that voluntarily disclose and/or cooperate. While the discussion above focuses on Sentencing Guidelines calculations and percentages of credit off the Sentencing Guidelines ranges, the discussion does not take into account decisions made by the government in settlement discussions that affect the ranges that are not seen in the settlement documents. For example, in settlement negotiations, the government might determine not to include certain transactions when calculating the gains obtained by the corporate defendant—perhaps because the evidence might have been weaker, or because jurisdiction might have been questionable, or because the settlement may have focused on transactions from a certain time period, or because of other factors. Thus, while the settlement documents might suggest a 20% discount from the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range, that range could have been higher had other transactions been included. These determinations are not transparent, but, anecdotally, there is some basis to believe that companies that voluntarily disclose and/or cooperate are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt as the sausage is being made. Given the lack of transparency in this area, the debates on this topic are likely to continue for a long time.”

Covington & Burling

The firm’s “Trends and Developments in Anti-Corruption Enforcement” is here.  Among other things, it states:

“As we have noted in the past, U.S. enforcement authorities have a taken creative and aggressive legal positions in pursuing FCPA cases. This past year saw a continuation of that trend, most notably with the SEC staking out an expansive position on the FCPA’s reach via agency theory.

Aggressive Use of Agency Theory. 2014 saw the SEC make use of a potentially far reaching agency theory to hold a parent company liable for the conduct of subsidiaries. In the Alcoa settlement, the SEC made clear that it had made “no findings that an officer, director or employee of [corporate parent Alcoa Inc.] knowingly engaged in the bribe scheme” at issue. Instead, its theory of liability was that the parent company “violated Section 30A of the Exchange Act by reason of its agents, including subsidiaries [Alcoa World Aluminum and Alcoa of Australia], indirectly paying bribes to foreign officials in Bahrain in order to obtain or retain business.” This agency theory was premised on the parent company’s alleged control over the business segment and subsidiaries where the conduct at issue allegedly occurred. Notably, the SEC did not rely on any evidence that parent-company personnel had direct involvement in or control over the alleged bribery scheme. Instead, the SEC pointed only to general indicia of corporate control that are the normal incidents of majority stock ownership (e.g., that Alcoa appointed the majority of seats on the business unit’s “Strategic Council,” transferred employees between itself and one of the relevant subsidiaries, and “set the business and financial goals” for the business segment). This is notable, in our view, because it is arguably at odds with DOJ and the SEC’s statement in the FCPA Resource Guide that they “evaluate the parent’s control — including the parent’s knowledge and direction of the subsidiary’s actions, both generally and in the context of the specific transaction — when evaluating whether a subsidiary is an agent of the parent.” (Emphasis added.) In the Alcoa matter, the SEC seemed to focus solely on “general” control; it did not allege any facts to support parent-level “knowledge and direction . . . in the context of the specific transaction.” This potentially expansive use of agency theory underscores the need for parent companies who are subject to FCPA jurisdiction to be attentive to corruption issues and compliance in all their corporate subsidiaries, even entities over which they do not exercise day-to-day managerial control.”

Miller & Chevalier

The firm’s FCPA Winter Review 2015 is here.

Among other useful information is a chart comparing the top ten FCPA enforcement actions (in terms of settlement amounts) as of 2007 compared to 2014 and a chart comparing SEC administrative proceedings and court filed complaints since 2005.

Davis Polk

The firm recently hosted a webinar titled “FCPA: 2014 Year-End Review of Trends and Global Enforcement Actions.”  The webcast and presentation slides are available here.

Jones Day

The firm’s FCPA Year in Review 2014 is here.

Other Items for the Reading Stack

From the FCPAmericas Blog – “Top FCPA Enforcement Trends to Expect in 2015.”

From the Corruption, Crime & Compliance Blog – “FCPA Year in Review 2014,” and FCPA Predictions for 2015.”

Friday Roundup

By on October 24, 2014 in Alcoa, Enforcement Agency Policy, Related Civil Litigation, SEC, Voluntary Disclosure

SEC administrative proceedings, a sorry state of affairs, voluntary disclosure calculus, nice payday but what was really accomplished, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

SEC Administrative Proceedings

A focus on SEC administrative proceedings here at the Wall Street Journal.

“The Securities and Exchange Commission is increasingly steering cases to hearings in front of the agency’s appointed administrative judges …”

For discussion of this dynamic in the FCPA context, see my article “A Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Narrative” (pgs. 991-995).

“SEC administrative settlements, as well as SEC  DPAs and NPAs, place the SEC in the role of regulator,  prosecutor, judge and jury all at the same time and a notable  feature from 2013 SEC FCPA corporate enforcement is that 4 (1  NPA and 3 administrative orders) of the 8 corporate enforcement  actions (50%) were not subjected to one ounce of judicial  scrutiny.”

In 2014, there have been three SEC corporate FCPA enforcement actions (Smith & Wesson, Alcoa, and HP).  All have been resolved via the SEC’s administrative process.

Sorry State of Affairs

It really is a sorry state of affairs when former government enforcement attorneys go into private practice and then criticize the current enforcement climate that they helped create.  For more on this dynamic in the FCPA context, see this prior post “A Former Enforcement Official Is Likely To Say (Or Has Already Said) The Same Thing.”

Albeit outside the FCPA Context, this ProPublica article, “In Turnabout, Former Regulators Assail Wall St. Watchdogs,” touches on the same general issue.

“Last week, I visited an alternate universe. The real world sees a pandemic of bank misconduct, but to the white-collar defense lawyers of Washington, the banks are the victims as they bow beneath the weight of regulators’ remarkably harsh punishments.

I was attending the Securities Enforcement Forum, a gathering of top regulators and white-collar defense worthies. The marquee section was a panel that included Andrew Ceresney, the current enforcement director of the SEC, and five of his predecessors. Four of those former S.E.C. officials represent corporations at prominent white-collar law firms. […] The conference turned into a free-for-all of high-powered and influential white-collar defense lawyers hammering regulators on how unfair they have been to their clients, some of America’s largest financial companies.

[…]

This is how power and influence work in Washington. Former top officials, whose portraits mount the walls, weigh in on matters of enforcement. Now working for the private sector, they assail the regulatory “overreach.” Sincerely held or self-serving, these views carry weight in Washington’s clubby legal milieu.

[…]

Former regulators are the mouthpieces. And given what they say in public, one can only imagine what is happening behind closed doors.”

Voluntary Disclosure Calculus

At the Corporate Crime Reporter, Laurence Urgenson (Mayer Brown) talks about, among other topics, voluntary disclosure.

“Voluntary disclosure is still an important option in dealing with FCPA risk,” Urgenson said. “It used to be the default position — people had a predisposition toward it. It’s moved from the default position to one taken only after a clear-eyed case by case analysis of the benefits and the costs.” “That’s because the benefits and costs of voluntary disclosure have shifted. Part of that is the result of globalization. Part of it has to do with the increased penalties.” “It used to be that the Department of Justice and the SEC could provide companies with one stop shopping. If you volunteered to the Department and SEC, and you settled the matter, you had finality.” “That was a big benefit of the voluntary disclosure process. Now, because in part of the high penalties and globalization, the Department and SEC resolution can be the first stop in a long journey, which includes dealing with law enforcement authorities around the world, dealing with NGOs such as the World Bank which has an enforcement process, and navigating the risks of civil litigation.” “Once the Department of Justice resorted to the alternative fine provisions, which greatly increases the potential fines and once the SEC began to use the disgorgement remedy, FCPA settlements became much more costly, so much so that they could affect the stock price and provoke civil actions.” “You really have to sit down with the client and look at the list of pluses and minuses to voluntary disclosure. You have to go through with the client the long list of things that follow from voluntary disclosure.”

Nice Payday But What Was Really Accomplished?

As highlighted in this Law360 article:

“Alcoa Inc. shareholders on Monday asked a Pennsylvania federal judge to approve a settlement between shareholders and the board over allegations that the company paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal bribes to government officials in Bahrain. The proposed agreement states that aluminum producer Alcoa “has adopted or will adopt” compliance reforms that include the creation of a chief ethics and compliance officer, an officer-level position that oversees the ethics and compliance program, enhancements to the program that include the development of an anti-corruption policy, and implementation of Alcoa’s due diligence and contracting procedure for intermediaries.

[…]

The proposed settlement also provides that there be a reorganization of Alcoa’s regional and local counsel reporting structure, enhanced mandatory annual Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and employee anti-corruption training, improvements to its business expense policies, and enhancements to its compliance policies for evaluating the effectiveness of preventing corruption.

In addition, the company has agreed to pay $3.75 million to the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Alcoa admits no wrongdoing or liability under the terms of the proposed agreement.”

The issue is the same as highlighted in this prior post – nice payday, plaintiffs’ lawyer,s but what was really accomplished?

In connection with the January 2014 FCPA enforcement action against Alcoa World Alumina, Alcoa basically agreed to the same thing it agreed to do in the above settlement.  (See here at Exhibit 4).

Reading Stack

A review of my book, “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in a New Era” published at International Policy Digest by John Giraudo (of the Aspen Institute and formerly a chief compliance officer).  It begins:

“If you care about the rule of law, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the New Era by Mike Koehler, is one of the most important books you can read—to learn how it is being eroded. Professor Koehler’s book … is a must read for people who care about law reform. It is a story of how a good law, the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a criminal law that prevents companies from bribing foreign government officials has been misapplied in recent enforcement actions by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).”

Miller & Chevalier’s FCPA Autumn Review 2014 is here.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

By on February 14, 2014 in Alcoa, Avon, Cisco, Declination Decisions, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, FCPA Statistics, McDonald’s, Non-Prosecution Agreement, Princelings, SEC, Third Parties, Year in Review 2013

Cisco’s discreet blog post, McDonald’s receives the “princeling” treatment, Avon update, further to the free-for-all, more candy, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Cisco’s Discreet Disclosure

There is not much that slips through the cracks when it comes to the FCPA space.

However, this December 23, 2013 Cisco blog post by a Vice President for Compliance Services under the discreet heading “The Importance of Ethics in Global Business” has not otherwise been reported.  The post states, after noting that “for the sixth time in as many years, the Ethisphere Institute honored Cisco by naming us to its list of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies,” as follows:

“Recently, at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Department of Justice, Cisco began an investigation into our business activities and discounting practices in Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States in response to a communication those agencies had received. We are cooperating with the agencies and will fully share the results of our investigation with them. Despite the extensive investigation that we have undertaken thus far, we have found no basis to believe that Cisco’s activities are in violation of any law, and indeed the information we were provided does not allege wrongdoing by any of Cisco’s executive management. While this investigation is ongoing, we do not expect the outcome to have any material adverse effect on our business or operations.”

For a prior post concerning companies that have resolved FCPA enforcement actions or have otherwise been under FCPA scrutiny while at the same general time earning “world’s most ethical” company status see here.

McDonald’s

The word of the last six months would seem to be “princeling.”  In “princeling” updates:

This Wall Street Journal article “Vietnam Gets Its First McDonald’s” states:

“McDonald’s chose Henry Nguyen, a Vietnamese-American investor and the son-in-law of Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, as its main franchise partner in the country.”

This Quartz article “McDonald’s Partnered with a Vietnamese Princeling”  notes:

“Partnering up with a well-connected member of one of Vietnam’s most prominent political families has raised remarkably few eyebrows for McDonald’s—especially given the growing scandal in China over investment banks that have done much the same thing.”

Among other things, the article notes:

“Nguyen, who also heads Vietnam’s Pizza Hut franchise business, worked hard for a decade to convince McDonald’s he was the right person for the partnership, he told Reuters last year. A McDonald’s spokeswoman said then, “His marriage did not preclude him for participating in what was a very competitive selection process.”

As noted in this prior post “Regarding Princelings and Family Members” there is nothing inherently illegal about hiring family members of alleged “foreign officials” and various DOJ FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases have blessed such arrangements.  Even so, several FCPA enforcement actions have been based, at least in part, on the hiring of family members of alleged “foreign officials” – see here.
Speaking of princelings, this Bloomberg article asks “If JPMorgan Has to Shun China’s Princelings, Shouldn’t Harvard?”

Avon

Avon has been under FCPA scrutiny since 2008 and disclosed yesterday as follows.

“The Company recorded an aggregate accrual related to the previously disclosed government Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) investigations of $89 million, or $0.20 per diluted share, within operating profit, of which $12 million was recorded in the second quarter. Based on the status of the Company’s current settlement negotiations with the DOJ and the staff of the SEC, including the level of monetary penalties being discussed, an additional $77 million was recorded in the fourth quarter, and the Company estimates the aggregate amount of any potential settlements with the government could exceed this accrual by up to approximately $43 million. There can be no assurance that the Company’s efforts to reach settlements with the government will be successful or, if they are, what the timing or terms of such settlements will be.”
During yesterday’s earnings conference call, Avon’s CEO stated:
“As you saw in our press release this morning, we’ve continued our discussions with that SEC and DOJ and we’ve made significant progress. Based on the status of our recent discussions, we believe that a reasonable range for settlement with both agencies would be $89 million to $132 million. Our discussions with the government are ongoing and differences remain, but the team is working hard in an effort to bring these matters to a close.”

Free-For-All

In my recent article “Why You Should Be Alarmed by the ADM FCPA Enforcement Action,” I noted that with increasing frequency in this new era of FCPA enforcement, it appears that the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have
transformed FCPA enforcement into a free-for-all in which any conduct the enforcement agencies find objectionable is fair game to extract a multimillion-dollar settlement from a risk-averse corporation.  In this post regarding the recent Alcoa enforcement action I noted that it was hard to square the enforcement action (the fourth largest FCPA enforcement action of all-time in terms of a settlement amount) when the alleged consultant at the center of the alleged bribery scheme was criminally charged by another law enforcement agency, put the law enforcement agency to its burden of proof at trial, and the law enforcement agency dismissed
the case because there was no ”realistic prospect of conviction.”

Further to the free-for-all, Wiley Rein attorneys Gregory Williams, Ralph Caccia and Richard Smith write here as follows.

“[I]t is remarkable that such a large monetary sanction was imposed when the criminal charges brought by the U.K. Serious Fraud Office against the consultant central to the alleged bribery scheme were dismissed on the grounds that there was no “realistic prospect of conviction.” Perhaps most striking, however, is the theory of parent corporate liability that the settlement reflects. Although there is no allegation that an Alcoa official participated in, or knew of, the improper payments made by its subsidiaries, the government held the parent corporation liable for FCPA anti-bribery violations under purported “agency” principles. Alcoa serves as an important marker in what appears to be a steady progression toward a strict liability FCPA regime.

[…]

Such an enforcement approach appears to abrogate basic tenets of corporate liability. A parent company is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary except when the companies disregard corporate formalities (alter ego theory) or when the subsidiary acts as the agent of the parent for a specific purpose.  For the latter, the parent is required to control the particular activity in question. The government’s new agency theory of enforcement represents an aggressive expansion of corporate liability, with significant the implications for parent companies both in terms of the compliance and potentially liability.”

For additional reading, see this recent post (“Dig into certain corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions and it would appear that legal liability seems to hop, skip, and jump around a multinational company.  This of course would be inconceivable in other areas, such as contract liability, tort liability, etc. absent an “alter ego” / “piercing the veil” analysis for the simple reason that is what the black letter law commands”).

More Candy

Previous posts here and here have dispensed FCPA candy (that is year in reviews).  You can be tardy for the party, but still be included in the fun and set forth below are three additional worthwhile reads.

BakerHostetler 2013 Year-End Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Update

“This [recent] decrease [in corporate FCPA enforcement actions] appears to be the result of proactive internal investigations and remediation by U.S. companies that recognize the importance of retaining external resources to investigate FCPA issues in light of the substantial fines levied by the government over recent years.”

That’s a nice way to spin it, but the better answer by far is to have a proper perspective on FCPA statistics and to realize that 35% of all corporate FCPA enforcement actions in recent years and 55% of the settlement amounts were the direct result of just three unique events.

WilmerHale Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Alert

Kudos for the following statement regarding so-called “declinations.”

“[W]hile these corporate disclosures are frequently referred to generically as “declinations,” that term seems to encompass not only genuine declinations where the government exercises discretion to decline prosecution of an otherwise chargeable offense, but also cases where the government decides not to prosecute because it has found insufficient evidence of FCPA violations or faces insurmountable legal hurdles in bringing a case.”

For more on so-called “declinations” see prior posts here, here and here.

Miller & Chevalier FCPA Winter Review 2014 

Once again, be warned – the divergent enforcement statistics are likely to make you dizzy at times and as to certain issues.  [Given the increase in FCPA Inc. statistical information and the growing interest in empirical FCPA-related research, I again highlight the need for an FCPA lingua franca (see here for the prior post), including adoption of the “core” approach to FCPA enforcement statistics (see here for the prior post), an approach endorsed by even the DOJ (see here), as well as commonly used by others outside the FCPA context (see here)]

For the Reading Stack

From the Washington Post, a look at New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the rise and controversy of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements.

In this recent NY Times Dealbook article, “S.E.C.’s Losing Streak in Court Puts Agency in Spotlight,” Professor Peter Henning (a former SEC enforcement official) begins as follows.

“Every litigator says that trials are messy affairs because no one can predict how they will play out.  After a string of recent unfavorable verdicts in fraud cases, the Securities and Exchange Commission may, too, be concerned with that trend. The S.E.C. is a bit like the New York Yankees, because every defeat is magnified, so we should be careful not to read too much into the anecdotal evidence as garnered by the results of a few recent trials.  Most cases filed by the agency are settled, garnering only modest publicity, so the effectiveness of its enforcement program is not tied solely to its wins in the courtroom.”

For more on the SEC’s recent losses, see here from Marc Fagel and Mary Kay Dunning (Gibson Dunn).

“One likely consequence [of the SEC’s recent losses] may be an increase in the number of enforcement matters filed as administrative cease-and-desist proceedings rather than as federal district court actions.”

Spot-on observation, but again a sorry state of affairs in that a way for the SEC to avoid litigated losses when put to its burden of proof is to avoid the judicial system altogether.

A recent survey from AlixPartners conducted in November 2013.  (The survey group consisted of executives at companies based in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia that have annual revenues of $150 million or more).  “The survey also found that although some companies have expanded the scope of their reviews of their foreign subsidiaries, one-third said they have not done that. Less than half (43%) of respondents said they regularly conduct due diligence on third-party agents.”  (See here for the prior post “It’s More Like Bronze Dust.”).

Friday Roundup

By on January 17, 2014 in Alcoa, Australia, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, FCPA Investigative Costs, Fine / Penalty Issues, Frederic Cilins, JPMorgan, Microsoft, Non-Prosecution Agreement, Nordion, Olympics

Did you notice?, scrutiny updates, quotable, too narrow, save the date and for the reading and viewing stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Did You Notice?

This previous post – “Double Dipping” – spotlighted a common trend in issuer FCPA enforcement actions.  That is, the company pays twice for the improper conduct.  First, to the DOJ because alleged improper gain is a key factor in the advisory U.S. sentencing guidelines which guide criminal fine amounts, and again to the SEC because alleged improper gain often equates to a disgorgement amount.

Did you notice the following in the recent Alcoa enforcement action?  In the DOJ’s plea agreement with Alcoa World Alumina LLC the DOJ set forth various factors justifying a reduced criminal fine amount including:  “the significant remedy being imposed on the Defendant’s majority shareholder, Alcoa, by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for Alcoa’s conduct in this matter.”

FCPA practitioners would be wise to file this someplace important and the DOJ’s recognition of such “double-dipping” is a welcome development.  Time will tell whether it was case specific.

Scrutiny Updates

Companies have different disclosure practices.  Some companies disclose specific FCPA internal investigation costs, others do not.  When a company falls into the former category, it is a relevant datapoint.  Nordion (see this prior post for its initial disclosure) recently disclosed that its “full year expenses associated with [its] investigation was $11.8 million.”

Microsoft, which first became the subject of FCPA scrutiny in March 2013 (see here) – thereby exposing the fallacy of the “good companies, don’t bribe period” position (see here) –  “is now requiring its partners to educate their employees on the legal
consequences of bribery and other illegal activity.”  So says this recent article in CRN which further states:   “A new Microsoft partner program requirement that went into effect this month calls for partners to “provide anti-corruption training to all employees who resell, distribute, or market Microsoft products or services,” Microsoft said in a document sent recently to partners, which was viewed by CRN.”

Quotable

Homer Moyer (Miller & Chevalier and a dean of the FCPA) steps up to the plate and hits another one out of the park.  In this recent article he states:

“One reality is the [FCPA] enforcement agencies’ views on issues and enforcement policies, positions on which they are rarely challenged in court.  The other is what knowledgeable counsel believe the government could sustain in court, should their interpretations or positions be challenged.  The two may not be the same.  The operative rules of the game are the agencies’ views unless a company is prepared to go to court or to mount a serious challenge within the agencies.”

Spot-on.

While the decision of one risk-averse business organization to settle an FCPA enforcement action may seem case specific, the long-term effects of such a decision affect not only the settling company, but other business organizations subject to increasingly aggressive FCPA enforcement theories.  (See here for a previous guest post titled “Prosecutorial Common Law”).

As former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rightly noted:

“In an ironic twist, the more that American companies elect to settle and not force the DOJ to defend its aggressive interpretation of the [FCPA], the more aggressive DOJ has become in its interpretation of the law and its prosecution decisions.”

Too Narrow

See here, and here for the Truth in Settlements Act recently introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).  As stated here:

“Federal agencies are charged with holding companies and individuals accountable when they break the law, and their investigations regularly end in settlement agreements rather than public trials. All too often, the critical details of these agreements are hidden from the public.”

The bill is too narrow.  The rule of law would be better advanced and transparency achieved by abolishing non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements.

Save the Date

On January 29th, Fordham Law School in New York City and the Chinese Business Lawyers Association will jointly host a panel titled “China and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:  Challenges for the 21st Century.” The event will be held from 6:00–7:30 p.m. in the Law School’s McNally Amphitheatre.  Speaker include:

Ohio State University Professor Daniel Chow, author of China Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; Nathaniel Edmonds, Partner at Paul Hastings and Former Assistant Chief of the FCPA Unit of the Department of Justice; and Thomas O. Gorman, Partner at Dorsey & Whitney and Former Senior Counsel, Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.

To learn more and to register see here.

For the Reading and Viewing Stack

It would not be a major sporting event without FCPA Inc. marketing material.  But then again, certain FCPA enforcement actions in recent years have included such allegations.

For the latest on JPMorgan’s hiring scrutiny in China, see here from Bloomberg which reports that a former “regional chief who expanded the bank’s business in Asia … was met by FBI agents while traveling through a New York-area airport late last year and then interviewed.”

For the latest on the FCPA related case against Frederic Cilins, see here from Bloomberg.  As noted in the article, Cilins “won approval from [the judge] to run forensic tests on contracts that were sought by a grand jury probing claims of bribes paid to win mining rights in Guinea.”

Multimedia content here from down under questioning the lack of Australia bribery related enforcement actions.  (An interesting view, even if the program begins with a false statement).

*****

A good weekend to all.

Alcoa Resolves A “Legacy Legal Matter” By Agreeing To Pay $384 Million In An FCPA Enforcement Action

By on January 10, 2014 in 2014 Enforcement Actions, Alba, Alcoa, Aluminum Industry, Bahrain, DOJ Enforcement Action, SEC Enforcement Action, Statute of Limitations, Victor Dahdaleh

Given the importance statute of limitations have in our legal system (see here for a recent Supreme Court decision), there is something odd in reading a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning allegations from a time when I was in 8th grade.  It is even more odd reading of an FCPA enforcement (not to mention the fourth largest FCPA enforcement action of all-time in terms of a settlement amount) when the alleged consultant at the center of the alleged bribery scheme was criminally charged by another law enforcement agency, put the law enforcement agency to its burden of proof at trial, and the law enforcement agency dismissed the case because there was no “realistic prospect of conviction” (see here for the prior post concerning the U.K. enforcement action of Victor Dahdaleh).

So begins this post concerning the Alcoa FCPA enforcement action announced yesterday by the DOJ and SEC (see here and here).

The enforcement action involved a DOJ criminal information against Alcoa World Alumina LLC resolved via a plea agreement and an SEC cease and desist order against Alcoa Inc.

Alcoa entities agreed to pay approximately $384 million to resolve alleged FCPA scrutiny (a criminal fine of $209 million and an administrative forfeiture of $14 million to resolve the DOJ enforcement action and $175 million in disgorgement to resolve the SEC enforcement action – of which $14 million will be satisfied by the payment of the forfeiture in the criminal action).

The $384 million settlement amount is the fourth largest in FCPA history.

This post summarizes both the DOJ and SEC enforcement actions.

DOJ

Criminal Information Against Alcoa World Alumina LLC

The enforcement action centers on Consultant A (no doubt Victor Dahdaleh) and his alleged interactions on behalf of Alcoa entities with Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba), an aluminium smelter operating in Bahrain.”  (See this 2010 post “What is Alba”).

The Alcoa entity charged is Alcoa World Alumina LLC, an entity that beginning in 2000 “assumed primary responsibility for all of Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (AWAC’s) relationships with global alumina customers, including Alba.”  According to the information, Alcoa World Alumina LLC “personnel responsible for these functions reported indirectly to Alcoa personnel in New York.”

Alba is described in the information as follows.

“The state holding company of the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Mumtalakat, which was controlled by the Ministry of Finance, held 77% of the shares of Alba.  The Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), which was majority-owned and controlled by the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, held a 20 percent minority stake in Alba, and three percent of Alba’s shares were held by a German investment group.  The majority of profits earned by Alba belonged to the Mumtalakat, through part of the profit was permitted to be used by Alba for its operations.  The Ministry of Finance had to approve any change in Alba’s capital structure and had to be consulted on any major capital projects or contracts material to Alba’s operations.  Members of the Royal Family of Bahrain and representatives of the government sat on the Board of Directors of Alba, controlled its board, and had primary authority in selecting its chief executive and chief financial officer.”

The alleged “foreign officials” are described as follows.

“Official A was a member of Bahrain’s Royal Family and served as a member of the board of directors of Alba from 1982 to 1997.  From 1988 to 1990, Official A was also a member of Alba’s tender committee, which was responsible in part for awarding major contracts to Alba’s suppliers, such as Alcoa entities supplying alumina to Alba.”

“Official B served on Alba’s board from at least 1986 to 2000 as a representative of SABIC.  From 1988 to 1990, Official B also served on Alba’s tender committee with Official A.”

“Official C was a senior member of Bahrain’s Royal Family, a senior government official of Bahrain from at least 1995 to 2005, and served as a high-ranking officer of Alba from 1995 to 2005.  As a high-ranking officer of Alba, Official C was extremely influential over the assignment of contracts to Alba’s suppliers.  Official C relied on Consultant A to assist him in opening international bank accounts using various aliases or shell entities for the purpose of receiving corrupt funds from kickbacks from Alba’s suppliers.”

“Official D was a senior member of Bahrain’s Royal Family and a senior government official of Bahrain for many decades.  Official C was a close associate of Official D.  Official D’s office was required to be consulted before Alba could commit to a long term alumina supply contract with Alcoa.”

According to the information, “beginning in or around 1989, at the request of certain Bahraini government officials who controlled Alba’s tender process, Alcoa of Australia retained Consultant A’s shell companies as purported sales agents and paid them purported sales commissions.”

The information alleges as follows.

“In or around 1988, an Alcoa of Australia sales manager for the Alba account received a request from certain Alba officials to retain Consultant A as ‘Alcoa’s agent’ and pay him a ‘commission.’  The request was made in part at the behest of Official A, a member of Alba’s board and tender committee.  The sales manager subsequently told his supervisor that Alcoa of Australia would lose the supply contract if Consultant A was not retained as its agent, and that supervisor, in turn, conveyed that information to an individual who was both an Alcoa of Australia Board member and an Alcoa employee based in Pittsburgh.  The individual approved the retention of Consultant A as a agent.”

Under the heading “Consultant A Channeled Millions in Corrupt Payments to Government Officials From 1991 Through 1996,” the information alleges:

“From 1993 through 1996, Consultant A made over $1 million in corrupt payments to Official A …”.

“From 1993 through 1996, Consultant A made over $2 million in corrupt payments to Official B …”.

Under the heading “Consultant A Channeled Million in Corrupt Payments to Government Officials From 1997 Through 2001,” the information alleges:

“From 1997 through 2001, Consultant A made over $5 million in corrupt payments to Official A …”.

“From 1997 through 2001, Consultant A made approximately $2.2 million in corrupt payments to Official B …”.

“From 1999 through 2001, Consultant A made over $19 million in corrupt payments to Official C …”.

Under the heading “Consultant A Channeled Millions in Corrupt Payments to Government Officials From 2002 Through 2004,” the information alleges:

“In 2002, Consultant A made over $1 million in corrupt payments to Official B …”.

“From 2002 through 2004, Consultant A made approximately $29 million in corrupt payments to Official C …”.

Under the heading “Additional Corrupt Payments to Government Officials,” the information alleges:

“From 2005 through 2006, Consultant A made almost $13 million in corrupt payments … to accounts that were beneficially owned by Official C under client code names …”.

“On or about April 3, 2006, Consultant A transferred $17 million … to an account owned by Official D …”.

Based on the above allegations, the information charges Alcoa World Alumina LLC with one count of violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and states:

“Alcoa World Alumina LLC caused Alcoa of Australia to enter into a sham distributorship agreement with Alumet and AAAC that facilitated the funneling of millions of dollars of bribes indirectly through Consultant A to senior officials of the Kingdom of Bahrain in order to obtain and retain a long-term alumina supply agreement between Alcoa of Australia and Alba.”

Plea Agreement

The above charge was resolved via a plea agreement in which Alcoa agreed to “guarantee, secure and ensure delivery” by Alcoa World Alumina LLC “of all payments due from the Defendant under the Agremenet.”  The advisory Sentencing Guidelines calculation set forth in the plea agreement based on the alleged conduct was $446 million to $892 million.

The plea agreement states that a $209 million criminal fine was an “appropriate disposition” of the case “because immediate payment of the entire fine would pose an undue burden” on Alcoa and the agreement lists the following factors:

the impact of a penalty within the guidelines range on the financial condition of Alcoa and its potential to substatially jeopardize Alcoa’s ability to compete, including, but not limited to, its ability to fund its sustaining and improving capital expenditures, its ability to invest in research and development, its ability to fund its pension obligations, and its ability to maintain necessary cash reserves to fund its operations and meet its liabilities.

The plea agreement also references:

“(b) the significant remedy being imposed on the Defendant’s majority shareholder, Alcoa, by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for Alcoa’s conduct in this matter; (c) after learning allegations of FCPA violations, Alcoa’s Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of the Board of Directors to oversee an internal investigation by independent counsel; (d) the substantial cooperation provided to the Department by the Defendant’s majority shareholder, Alcoa, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Department; (e) the remedial efforts already undertaken and to be undertaken by the Defendant’s majority shareholder, Alcoa, which affect both the Defendant’s operations and those of Alcoa, including the hiring of new senior legal and ethics and compliance officers and the implementation of enhanced due diligence reviews of the retention of third-party agents and consultants; and (f) Alcoa’s separate commitment to ensuring that its anti-corruption compliance program will be maintained to continue to satisfy the minimum elements” set forth in an attachment to the agreement.

In this “Agreed Motion to Waive the Presentence Report,” the DOJ condenses the extensive allegations in the information as follws under the heading “Charged Conduct.”

“The charge is based on the Defendant’s role in 2004 in procuring a ten-year agreement to sell approximately 1.7 million metric tons of alumina to Alba from AWAC’s Australian refineries. The Defendant caused Alcoa of Australia to enter into a purported distributorship with a shell company owned by Consultant A, an international middleman who had close contacts with certain members of Bahrain’s Royal Family, rather than contract directly with Alba. The Defendant consciously disregarded that the mark-up imposed by Consultant A on sales of alumina to Alba was facilitating corrupt payments to certain Bahraini government officials who controlled Alba’s tender process.”

In the DOJ’s release, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated:

“Alcoa World Alumina today admits to its involvement in a corrupt international underworld in which a middleman, secretly held offshore bank accounts, and shell companies were used to funnel bribes to government officials in order to secure business.  The law does not permit companies to avoid responsibility for foreign corruption by outsourcing bribery to their agents, and, as today’s prosecution demonstrates, neither will the Department of Justice.”

David Hickton (U.S. Attorney for the W.D. of Pa) stated:

“Today’s case shows that multinational corporations cannot get away with using middlemen to structure sham business arrangements that funnel kickbacks to government officials.”

Richard Weber (Chair of the IRS Criminal Division) stated:

“This case is the result of unraveling complex financial transactions used by Alcoa World Alumina LLC’s agent to facilitate kickbacks to foreign government officials.  IRS-CI will not be deterred by the use of sophisticated international financial transactions as we continue our ongoing efforts to pursue corporations and executives who use hidden offshore assets and shell companies to circumvent the law.”

Valerie Parlave (Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office) stated:

“Corrupt kickback payments to foreign government officials to obtain business diminish public confidence in global commerce.  There is no place for bribery in any business model or corporate culture.   Today’s plea demonstrates the FBI and our law enforcement partners are committed to curbing corruption and will pursue all those who try to advance their businesses through bribery.”

The DOJ release further states:

“The plea agreement and related court filings acknowledge Alcoa’s current financial condition as a factor relevant to the size of the criminal fine, as well as Alcoa’s and Alcoa World Alumina’s extensive cooperation with the department, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, making proffers to the government, voluntarily making current and former employees available for interviews, and providing relevant documents to the department.   Court filings also acknowledge subsequent anti-corruption remedial efforts undertaken by Alcoa.   The department acknowledges and expresses its appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, the Guernsey Financial Intelligence Service and Guernsey Police, the Australian Federal Police, the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office, and other law enforcement authorities in the department’s investigation of this matter.”

 SEC

The SEC enforcement action is based on the same core set of facts alleged in the DOJ enforcement action and the cease and desist order states in summary fashion as follows.

“These proceedings arise from violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Alcoa concerning alumina sales to Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (“Alba”), an aluminum manufacturer owned primarily by the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Between 1989 and 2009, Alcoa of Australia (“AofA”) and Alcoa World Alumina LLC (“AWA”) (collectively, the “AWAC Subsidiaries”) retained a consultant to act as their middleman in connection with sales of alumina to Alba and knew or consciously disregarded the fact that the relationship with the consultant was designed to generate funds that facilitated corrupt payments to Bahraini officials. The consultant was paid a commission on sales where he acted as an agent and received a markup on sales where he acted as a purported distributor. On sales where the consultant acted as a purported distributor, no legitimate services were provided to justify the role of the consultant as a distributor. The consultant used these funds to enrich himself and pay bribes to senior government officials of Bahrain.

The commission payments to the consultant and the alumina sales to the consultant made pursuant to the distribution agreements were improperly recorded in Alcoa’s books and records as legitimate commissions or sales to a distributor and did not accurately reflect the transactions. The false entries were initially recorded by the AWAC Subsidiaries which were then consolidated into Alcoa’s books and records. During the relevant period, Alcoa also lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent and detect the improper payments.”

In pertinent part, the order states as follows.

“Despite the red flags inherent in this arrangement [between the AWAC Subsidiaries and Consultant A], AofA’s in-house counsel approved the arrangement without conducting any due diligence or otherwise determining whether there was a legitimate business purpose for the use of a third party intermediary.”

[…]

“Employees at AWA and AofA either knew or were willfully blind to the high probability that Consultant A would use his commissions and markup to pay bribes.”

[…]

“The AWAC Subsidiaries knew or consciously disregarded the fact that Consultant A was inserted into the Alba sales supply chain to generate funds to pay bribes to Bahraini officials. Ultimately, these funds facilitated at least $110 million in corrupt payments to Bahraini officials. The vast majority of those funds were generated from the markup between the price Consultant A sold to Alba and the price that AofA sold to Consultant A. Those funds were also generated from the commissions that AofA paid to Consultant A.

The recipients of the corrupt payments included a senior Bahraini official, members of the board of directors of Alba, and senior management of Alba. Examples of the corrupt payments include:  In August 2003, Consultant A’s shell companies made 2 payments totaling $7 million to accounts for the benefit of a Bahraini government official who Consultant A had been retained to lobby. Two weeks later, Alcoa and Alba signed an agreement in principle to have Alcoa participate in Alba’s plant expansion.  In October 2004, Consultant A’s shell company paid $1 million to an account for the benefit of that same government official. Shortly thereafter, Alba agreed in principle to Alcoa’s offer for the 2005 Alba Supply Agreement. In or around the time of the execution of the final 2005 Alba Supply Agreement, Consultant A-controlled companies paid another Bahraini government official and/or his beneficiaries $41 million in three payments.”

The order then states as follows.

“This Order contains no findings that an officer, director or employee of Alcoa knowingly engaged in the bribe scheme. As described above, Alcoa violated [the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions] by reason of its agents, including subsidiaries AWA and AofA, indirectly paying bribes to foreign officials in Bahrain in order to obtain or retain business. AWA, AofA, and their employees all acted as “agents” of Alcoa during the relevant time, and were acting within the scope of their authority when participating in the bribe scheme. As described above, Alcoa exercised control over the Alumina Segment, including the AWAC Subsidiaries. Alcoa appointed the majority of seats on the AWAC Strategic Council, and the head of the Global Primary Products group served as its chair. Alcoa and AofA transferred personnel between them, including alumina sales staff; Alcoa set the business and financial goals for AWAC and coordinated the leg al, audit, and compliance functions of AWAC; and the AWAC Subsidiaries’ employees managing the Alba alumina business reported functionally to the global head of the Alumina Segment. Alba was a significant alumina customer for Alcoa’s Alumina Segment and during the relevant period, members of Alcoa senior management met both with Alba officials and Consultant A to discuss matters related to the Alba relationship, including a proposed joint venture between Alcoa and Alba. During this time, Alcoa was aware that Consultant A was an agent and distributor with respect to AofA’s sales of alumina to Alba and that terms of related contracts were reviewed and approved by senior managers of Alcoa’s Alumina Segment in the United States.”

[…]

“Alcoa violated [the books and records provisions] by improperly recording the payments, to Consultant A, as agent commissions when the true purpose of these payments was to make corrupt payments to Bahraini officials. Alcoa violated [the books and records provisions] when Alcoa recorded the sales to Consultant A as a distributor. The false entries were initially recorded by the AWAC Subsidiaries which were then consolidated and reported by Alcoa in its consolidated financial statements. Alcoa also violated [the internal controls provisions] by failing to devise and maintain sufficient accounting controls to detect and prevent the making of improper payments to foreign officials.”

Under the heading “Alcoa’s Remedial Measures,” the order states:

“Alcoa made an initial voluntary disclosure of certain of these issues to the Commission and Department of Justice in February 2008, and thereafter Alcoa’s Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of the Board of Directors to oversee an internal investigation by independent counsel. Alcoa’s counsel regularly reported on the results of the investigation and fully cooperated with the staff of the Commission.  Alcoa also undertook extensive remedial actions including: a comprehensive compliance review of anti-corruption policies and procedures, including its relationship with intermediaries; enhancing its internal controls and compliance functions; developing and implementing enhanced FCPA compliance procedures, including the development and implementation of policies and procedures such as the due diligence and contracting procedure for intermediaries; and conducting comprehensive anti-corruption training throughout the organization.”

In the SEC’s release, George Canellos (Co-Director of the SEC Enforcement Division) stated:

“As the beneficiary of a long-running bribery scheme perpetrated by a closely controlled subsidiary, Alcoa is liable and must be held responsible.  It is critical that companies assess their supply chains and determine that their business relationships have legitimate purposes.”

Kara N. Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit) stated:

“The extractive industries have historically been exposed to a high risk of corruption, and those risks are as real today as when the FCPA was first enacted.”

The SEC release further states:

“The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Australian Federal Police, Ontario Securities Commission, Guernsey Financial Services Commission, Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority, Norwegian ØKOKRIM, United Kingdom Financial Control Authority, and Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.”

In this release (which per the plea agreement, the company needed to consult with the DOJ before issuing), Alcoa stated as follows.

“Alcoa Inc. [has] announced the resolution of the investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding certain legacy alumina contracts with Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba).  The settlement with the DOJ was reached with Alcoa World Alumina LLC (AWA). AWA is a company within Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (AWAC), the unincorporated bauxite mining and alumina refining  venture between Alcoa Inc. and Alumina Limited.   […]  There is no allegation in the filings by the DOJ and there is no finding by the SEC that anyone at Alcoa Inc. knowingly engaged in the conduct at issue.  […]  Alcoa welcomes the resolution of this legacy legal matter with the U.S. Government.”

The Alcoa release also details the drawn out nature of the settlement payments (an unusual feature in an FCPA enforcement action).  The release states:

“As part of the DOJ resolution […] AWA will pay a total of $223 million, including a fine of $209 million payable in five equal installments over four years. The first installment of $41.8 million, plus a one-time administrative forfeiture of $14 million, will be paid in the first quarter of 2014, and the remaining installments of $41.8 million each will be paid in the first quarters of 2015-2018.”

“Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, Alcoa Inc. agreed to a settlement amount of $175 million, but will be given credit for the $14 million one-time forfeiture payment, which is part of the DOJ resolution, resulting in a total cash payment to the SEC of $161 million payable in five equal installments over four years. The first installment of $32.2 million will be paid to the SEC in the first quarter of 2014, and the remaining installments of $32.2 million each will be paid in the first quarters of 2015-2018.”

As to the reason for the drawn-out settlement amounts, the SEC release states:

“In light of the impact of the disgorgement payment upon Respondent’s financial condition and its potential to substantially jeopardize Alcoa’s ability to fund its sustaining and improving capital expenditures, its ability to invest in research and development, its ability to fund its pension obligations, and its ability to maintain necessary cash reserves to fund its operations and meet its liabilities, Alcoa shall pay the disgorgement in five equal payments …”.

Alcoa World Alumina was represented in the criminal matter by Jonathan R. Streeter, Robert J. Jossen and Diane Nicole Princ of Dechert LLP and Alcoa was represented in the SEC matter by Evan Chesler of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

Yesterday, Alcoa’s stock price closed down approximately 1.3%.

As highlighted in this post, in October 2012 Alcoa announced (here) that it entered into a settlement agreement with Alba resolving a civil lawsuit that had been pending since 2008 concerning the same alleged core facts in the DOJ and SEC enforcement action.Alcoa agreed to make a cash payment to Alba of $85  million payable in two installments.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes