Acquiring a Deferred Prosecution Agreement
In November 2010, Pride International Inc. was one of several companies to resolve a coordinated FCPA enforcement action involving (at least in part) the use of Panalpina services.
As noted in this prior post, the Pride enforcement action included not only Nigeria – Panalpina related conduct, but also conduct relating to contract extensions in Venezuela, bribing an administrative law judge in India, customs duties in Mexico, as well as other improper conduct in other countries.
The enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $56.2 million ($32.6 million criminal fine via a DOJ plea agreement and deferred prosecution agreement; $23.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via a SEC settled complaint).
The three year DPA (here) imposed on Pride a host of compliance undertakings including reporting to the DOJ on an annual basis (during the term of the DPA) “on its progress and experience in maintaining and, as appropriate, enhancing its compliance policies and procedures.”
On February 7th, Pride announced (here) a definitive merger agreement by which U.K. based Ensco (plc) will acquire Pride in a cash and stock transaction expected to close in the second quarter of 2011. The release states as follows. “The transaction will create the second largest offshore driller in the world with 74 rigs spanning all of the strategic, high-growth markets around the globe.”
So what will happen to Pride’s DPA obligations?
A common clause in DPA’s is a sale or merger clause.
In the Pride DPA, it states as follows.
Sale or Merger of Pride International
“Pride International agrees that in the event it sells, merges, or transfers all or substantially all of its business operations as they exist as of the date of this Agreement, whether such sale is structured as a stock or asset sale, merger or transfer (including the sale, merger, or transfer of unincorporated branches), it shall include in any contract for sale, merger or transfer a provision binding the purchaser, or any successor in interest thereto, to the obligations described in this Agreement.”
Sure enough, Section 5.15 of the “Agreement and Plan of Merger” (here) states as follows.
“Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Effective as of the Effective Time, Parent [Ensco] agrees to be bound, and the Surviving Entity shall continue to be bound, by the obligations of the Company [Pride] set forth in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, dated November 4, 2010, between the Company and the U.S. Department of Justice, to the extent required thereby.”
Pride’s FCPA compliance obligations and undertakens may not be the only FCPA-related issues on Ensco’s plate.
Ensco has ADR’s traded on the U.S. market and “following disclosures by other offshore service companies announcing internal investigations involving the legality of amounts paid to and by customs brokers in connection with temporary importation of rigs and vessels into Nigeria, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and management commenced an internal investigation in July 2007.”
Ensco’s most recent quarterly filing (here) states as follows.
“Our internal investigation has essentially been concluded. Discussions were held with the authorities to review the results of the investigation and discuss associated matters during 2009 and the first half of 2010. On May 24, 2010, we received notification from the SEC Division of Enforcement advising that it does not intend to recommend any enforcement action. We expect to receive a determination by the United States Department of Justice in the near-term. Although we believe the United States Department of Justice will take into account our voluntary disclosure, our cooperation with the agency and the remediation and compliance enhancement activities that are underway, we are unable to predict the ultimate disposition of this matter, whether we will be charged with violation of the anti-bribery, recordkeeping or internal accounting control provisions of the FCPA or whether the scope of the investigation will be extended to other issues in Nigeria or to other countries. We also are unable to predict what potential corrective measures, fines, sanctions or other remedies, if any, the United States Department of Justice may seek against us or any of our employees.”
Tyson Foods Settles FCPA Enforcement Action Involving Mexican Veterinarians And Their No-Show Wives
Yet another FCPA enforcement action raises the issue of whether the FCPA’s “obtain or retain business” element means anything anymore or whether the FCPA, contrary to Congressional intent, has morphed into an all-purpose corporate ethics statute and – in a game of chicken – companies opt to settle rather than mount a legal defense.
Yesterday, Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest processors of chicken and other food items, agreed to resolve an FCPA enforcement action focused on payments to Mexican veterinarians (and their no-show wives) responsible for certifying product for export.
The enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $5.2 million ($4 million criminal fine via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement; $1.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via a SEC settled complaint).
DOJ
The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against Tyson resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).
Criminal Information
The information contains a background section which describes the following.
“The Government of Mexico administers an inspection program, Tipo Inspeccion Federal (“TIF”), for meat-processing facilities. Any company that exports meat products from Mexico must participate in the inspection program, which is supervised by an office in the Mexican Department of Agriculture (“SAGARPA”). The inspection program at each facility is supervised by an on-site veterinarian who is a government employee (“TIF veterinarian”), paid by the state, who ensures that all exports are in conformity with Mexican health and safety laws.” “There are two categories of TIF veterinarians: ‘approved’ and ‘official.’ Although all TIF veterinarians are foreign officials under the FCPA, Mexican law permits approved veteriarians to charge the facility in which they work a fee for their services in addition to their offcial salary. Official veterinarians receive all of their salary from the Mexican government and may not be paid by the facility they supervise.”
The conduct at issue focuses on Tyson de Mexico (“TdM”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson that produces protein-based and prepared food products for sale in Mexico and foreign countries other than the U.S. TdM is headquartered in Mexico and maintains three meat-processing factories in Mexico.
The information charges that from July 2004 through November 2006, Tyson, TdM, and others were engaged in a conspiracy to “assist Tyson and TdM in the export of meat products from Mexico through the payment and promise of payment of things of value to Mexican government-employed TIF veterinarians, in order to obtain or retain business for TdM by influencing the decisions of veterinarians responsible for certifying TdM products for export under the TIF Program.”
The information does not give any detail as to how the payments sought to influence the veterinarians nor does it suggest that the product at issue was not qualified for export. In fact, as detailed below, Tyson’s press release (a release the DOJ had to approve per the deferred prosecution agreement) states that there were no issues with the safety of the exported products.
Among other things, the information alleges that part of the conspiracy was “to place the wives of the TIF veterinarians on TdM’s payroll, providing them with a salary and benefits, knowing that the wives did not actually perform any services for TdM …”. According to the information, upon “termination of the salaries to the wives of the TIF veterinarians” in November 2006 Tyson “agreed to increase the amount paid to the veterinarians based on false invoices by the same amount as the salaries previously paid to their wives.”
The information alleges that the above payments were falsely recorded on company books and records as “professional fees” and salaries in order to conceal the true nature of the improper payments in the consolidated books and records of Tyson.
In addition to the above described payments, the information also alleges that from the time Tyson acquired TdM in 1994 through 2006, “Tyson made occassional additional improper payments to the TIF veterinarians on an ad-hoc basis.”
Under the heading “Total Improper Payments” the information alleges as follows:
“Tyson, its executives, and its subsidiaries authorized the payment, directly or indirectly, of approximately $90,000 to Mexican government-employed veterinarians, in order to obtain or retain business for TdM by influencing the decisions of veterinarians responsible for certifying TdM products for export under the TIF program, resulting in profits of approximately $880,000.”
In addition, the information alleges that from the time of Tyson’s acquisition of TdM until May 2004, “an additional $260,000 in improper payments were made to the TIF veterinarians, both indirectly and directly, including through payments to wives of TIF veterinarians.”
Based on the above allegations, the information charges Tyson with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and substantive FCPA anti-bribery violations.
DPA
The DOJ’s charges against Tyson were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement.
Pursuant to the DPA, Tyson admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, agents, and wholly-owned subsidiaries as set forth above.
The term of the DPA is two years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement “based on the following factors”:
(a) Tyson voluntarily disclosed the misconduct;
(b) Tyson conducted a thorough internal investigation of the misconduct;
(c) Tyson reported all of its findings to the Department;
(d) Tyson cooperated in the Department’s investigation of the matter;
(e) Tyson has undertaken certain remedial measures;
(f-g) Tyson has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department and the SEC in any investigation of the conduct of Tyson and its directors, offcers, employees, agents, consultants, subsidiaries, contractors, and subcontractors relating to violations of the FCPA; and
(h) with respect to the corporate compliance reporting obligations, the Department considered the following facts and circumstances: (i) Tyson has already engaged in signficant remediation related to the misconduct and implemented an enhanced compliance program; (ii) approximately 85-90% of Tyson’s sales are domestic; (iii) Tyson operates only six wholly-owned production facilities overseas, three in Mexico and three in Brazil, all of which have been subjected to rigorous FCPA reviews; (iv) Tyson’s only direct government customers are domestic; and (v) the problematic operations in TdM comprised less than one percent of Tyson’s global net sales.
As stated in the DPA, the fine range for the above described conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was $5.04 to $10.08 million. Pursuant to the DPA, Tyson agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $4 million (approximately 20% below the minimum amount suggested by the guidelines).
Pursuant to the DPA, Tyson agreed to self-report to the DOJ “periodically, at no less than six-month intervals” during the term of the DPA “regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance activities” described in the DPA. Given the factors the DOJ set forth in (h) above, this reporting obligation is a bit of a surprise.
As is standard in FCPA DPAs, Tyson agreed not to make any public statement “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility” as set forth in the DPA and Tyson further agreed to only issue a press release in connection with the DPA if the DOJ does not object to the release.
In the DOJ’s release (here) Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated as follows: “Tyson Foods used false books and sham jobs to hide bribe payments made to publicly-employed meat processing plant inspectors in Mexico – the penalty and resolution announced today reflect the company’s disclosure of this conduct, its cooperation with the government’s investigation and its commitment to implementing enhanced controls.”
SEC
The SEC’s civil complaint (here) is based on the same core conduct described above.
The complaint alleges that Tyson “authorized” TdM’s illicit activities and that “in connection with these improper payments, Tyson Foods failed to keep accurate books and records and failed to have effective internal controls, as the true nature of the payments were concealed through salary payments to phantom employees and through service invoices submitted by one of the veterinarians.”
According to the SEC, “Tyson Foods realized net profits of more than $880,000 from export sales from [TdM] facilities in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Based on the above conduct, the SEC charged Tyson with FCPA’s anti-bribery violations and FCPA books and records and internal control violations.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Tyson agreed to an injunction prohibiting future FCPA violations and agreed to pay $1.2 million in disgorgement and pre-judgement interest.
In the SEC release (here), Robert Khuzami (Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement) stated: “Tyson and its subsidiary committed core FCPA violations by bribing government officials through no-show jobs and phony invoices, and by having a lax system of internal controls that failed to detect or prevent the misconduct.”
Laurence Urgenson (here) of Kirkland & Ellis represented Tyson.
Tyson’s press release (here) notes, among other things, that its voluntary disclosure occured in early 2007 and that “none of the products exported from Tyson de México during the time period involved were shipped to the U.S., nor were there any issues with the safety of the products.”
David Van Bebber, the company’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel stated as follows: “We’re committed to abiding by the law as well as our company’s Core Values, which call on all of our people to operate with integrity. While we’re disappointed mistakes were made, corrective action has been taken and the improper payments were discontinued. As our international operations have expanded, we continue to strengthen the compliance efforts of our international businesses including improved training and compliance programs, extensive retraining, and anti-corruption focused audits.”
Maxwell Technologies is the First Corporate Enforcement Action of 2011
In early January, Maxwell Technologies Inc. (“Maxwell”), announced that the U.S. Department of Defense awarded the company a $1.7 million contract (here), “for the initial phase of a multi-phase program to develop a lighter, longer-lasting, energy source for field radios and other portable electronic equipment carried by military personnel.”
On January 31st, Maxwell became the first company in 2011 to settle an FCPA enforcement action.
The Maxwell enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $14.4 million ($8 million criminal fine via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement; $6.4 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via a SEC settled complaint).
Maxwell previously disclosed (see here) that “discussions with the SEC and DOJ have resulted in an estimate of potential settlement of up to $20.0 million – representing the combined first offer of settlement put forth by the SEC and DOJ.” Presumably, the company’s disclosure of the government’s settlement offer did not sit well with the DOJ and on July 30, 2009, Maxwell issued this strange press release.
As set forth more fully below, the alleged recipients of the bribe payments at issue were all employees of alleged Chinese state-owned or state-controlled enterprises. Also of note, the SEC’s charges include disclosure violations not often seen in FCPA enforcement actions, based on allegation that Maxwell’s bribe payments allowed the company to offset losses and fund product expansions that are now a source of revenue for the company.
DOJ
The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against Maxwell resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).
Criminal Information
The criminal information, a short eight pages, alleges that “from at least July 2002 through in or about May 2009, Maxwell and its subsidiaries paid approximately $2,789,131 to Agent 1 [a Chinese national, third-party agent responsible for Maxwell S.A.’s (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maxwell) high voltage capacitor sales to Chinese customers] to be distributed to Chinese foreign officials, in return for securing contracts that profited Maxwell.”
The Chinese foreign officials?
You guessed it, employees of alleged state-owned entities such as:
“Pinggao Group Co. Ltd. [formerly Pingdingshan High Voltage Switchgear Works) … a state owned manufacturer of electric-utility infrastructure in Henan Province, China” (see here for the company’s website)
“New Northeast Electric Shenyang HV Switchgear Co., Ltd. … a state-owned manufacturer of electric-utility infrastructure in Liaoning Province, China” (see here for company information) and
“Xi-an XD High Voltage Apparatus Co., Ltd., … a state-owned manufacturer of electric-utility infrastructure in Shaanxi Province, China” (see here for the company’s website).
According to the information, “Maxwell and its subsidiaries accomplished [the bribe] payments by using Agent 1 to market and sell Maxwell’s high voltage capacitors to Chinese consumers … substantially all of which were Chinese state-owned entities.” The information alleges that Agent 1 “requested quotes from Maxwell S.A. on behalf of prospective Chinese state-owned entities” and that “upon Agent 1’s instruction, Maxwell S.A. added an extra 20 percent to the quoted amounts to arrive at a higher price for Maxwell S.A.’s high-voltage equipment.” The information alleges that Agent 1 then distributed the extra amount “to officials at the Chinese state-owned entities” including employees of the above referenced companies.
Under the heading, “Knowledge Within Maxwell’s U.S. Management,” the information alleges that “Maxwell’s management within the United States discovered, tactitly approved, concealed and caused to be concealed the bribery scheme.” According to the information, following discovery of the payments by Maxwell senior management in the U.S. including by Executive A, Executive B, and Executive C (all U.S. citizens), under Executive E’s (a Swiss citizen and Maxwell S.A’s Vice President and General Manager) oversight and supervision, the payments at issue to Agent 1 actually increased from approximately $165,000 in 2002 to nearly $1.1 million in 2008.
According to the information, Maxwell’s financial statements and reports described the bribe payments as “sales-commission expenses.”
Based on the above allegations, the information charges Maxwell with FCPA anti-bribery violations and knowingly violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions.
DPA
The DOJ’s charges against Maxwell were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement.
Pursuant to the DPA, Maxwell admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, subsidiaries, and agents as set forth above.
The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement “based on the individual facts and circumstances” of the case and Maxwell.
Among the factors stated are the following.
(a) Maxwell voluntarily disclosed its FCPA violations to both the DOJ and the SEC;
(b) Maxwell cooperated with the Department’s investigation of Maxwell and others;
(c) Maxwell undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake further remedial measures …;
(d) Maxwell agreed to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Maxwell and its employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and others relating to violations of the FCPA; and
(e) the impact on Maxwell, including collateral consequences, of a guilty plea or criminal conviction.
As stated in the DPA, the fine range for the above described conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was $10.5 million to $21 million. Pursuant to the DPA, Maxwell agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $8 million (25% below the minimum amount suggested by the guidelines).
Pursuant to the DPA, Maxwell agreed to self-report to the DOJ “periodically, at no less than 12-month intervals” during the term of the DPA “regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures” described in the DPA.
As is standard in FCPA DPAs, Maxwell agreed not to make any public statement “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility” by Maxwell as set forth in the DPA and Maxwell further agreed to only issue a press release in connection with the DPA if the DOJ does not object to the release.
As to debarment issues, paragraph 22 of the DPA states as follows:
“The Department agrees to bring to the attention of governmental and other debarment authorities the facts and circumstances relating to the nature of the conduct underlying this Agreement, including the nature and quality of Maxwell’s cooperation and remediation. By agreeing to provide this information to debarment authorities, the Department is not agreeing to advocate on Maxwell’s behalf, but rather is providing facts to be evaluated independently by the debarment authorities.”
See here for the DOJ release.
SEC
The SEC’s civil complaint (here) alleges, in summary, as follows.
“From 2002 through May 2009, Maxwell violated the anti-bribery, books and records and internal control provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) when it repeatedly paid bribes to Chinese officials in order to obtain and retain sales contracts for high voltage capacitors from several Chinese state-owned entities. Maxwell engaged in bribery to maintain its high-voltage capacitor business in China, which accounted for material revenue and profits during the relevant time period.”
According to the complaint, “the illicit payments were made with the knowledge and tacit approval of certain former Maxwell officers and Maxwell failed to accurately record these payments on its books and records, and failed to implement or maintain a system of effective internal accounting controls to detect or prevent the payments.”
The complaint alleges that “the improper payments generated nearly $15.4 million in sales contracts, from which Maxwell realized profits ofover $5.6 million.”
According to the SEC:
“Maxwell violated [the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions] by engaging in widespread bribery of government officials in China in order to sell its high-voltage capacitors to several Chinese state-owned enterprises. Maxwell violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-l, and 13a13 thereunder by failing to disclose in its annual and periodic filings that the material revenues and profits associated with its long-standing bribery scheme enabled Maxwell to better financially position itself until new products could be commercially developed and sold. Maxwell violated [the FCPA’s internal control provisions] by failing to maintain internal controls to prevent or detect the bribes paid to officials at Chinese state owned-entities. Finally, Maxwell violated [the FCPA’s books and records provisions] by failing to accurately reflect the nature of the improper payments in Maxwell’s books, records, and accounts.”
The SEC’s complaint contains an allegation not often seen in FCPA enforcement actions about how the company’s alleged bribery scheme helped offset losses in other areas and helped fund future product development.
According to the SEC:
“Maxwell greatly depended on the revenue from Maxwell SA’s high-voltage capacitor sales to China in order to help fund Maxwell’s expansion into new product lines that are now expected to become Maxwell’s future source of revenue. Maxwell engaged in the bribery scheme because it enabled the company to obtain material revenue needed to financially position itself to help fund the very products that today are sustaining Maxwell’s future growth.”
As to “Discovery of the Illicit Payments” the complaint states as follows.
“Potential FCPA and accounting concerns came to the attention of Maxwell’s finance department in September 2008, during an internal review of Maxwell SA’s commission expenses involving the Chinese Agent. Maxwell’s management team asked about these commission payments after learning of the unusually high Chinese Agent commissions, which included the Extra Amounts. During this review, Executive A informed Maxwell’s finance department that the payments made to the Chinese Agent were recorded as sales commissions. Maxwell’s finance department then sought and obtained a signed FCPA certificate from the Chinese Agent in which he represented that he was familiar with the U.S. FCPA and local laws and regulations regarding corrupt payments” and that he had not in the past and will not in the future make any improper payments.
However, according to the SEC, “after obtaining the representations, Maxwell’s finance department took no further corrective action regarding the commissions and Extra Amounts paid to the Chinese Agent …”.
In February 2009, Maxwell’s new CEO, became aware of the issues with the Chinese Agent and he “immediately notified Maxwell’s audit committee and outside counsel.”
According to the SEC:
“During the relevant period, Maxwell’s controls designed to prevent illicit payments to foreign officials were wholly inadequate. At the time, Maxwell’s Code of Conduct contained a brief section on FCPA issues, but there is no evidence that employees received any FCPA training prior to the company’s remedial steps.”
As to Maxwell’s internal controls failures, the complaint states as follows:
“Maxwell (1) failed to question why the contract prices were artificially inflated by 20% above the bid prices; (2) did not request supporting documentation for the invoices or track where the commission payments ultimately were distributed; (3) performed no due diligence on the agent; (4) did not require FCPA training for all relevant employees; and (5) failed to take any action even though it appears that certain former officers and senior managers of Maxwell had knowledge of the bribes paid by Maxwell SA and its agent since at least November 2002.”
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Maxwell agreed to an injunction prohibiting future FCPA violations and agreed to $5,654,576 in disgorgement and $696,314 in prejudgment interest.
In the SEC release (here) Cheryl Scarboro (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated as follows: “Maxwell’s bribery allowed the company to obtain revenue and better financially position itself until new products were commercially developed and sold. This enforcement action shows that corruption can constitute disclosure violations as well as violations of other securities laws.”
Jeffrey Higgins (here) of Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian LLP and Jerome Roth (here) of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP represented Maxwell.
Since announcement of the January 31st enforcement action, Maxwell’s shares are up approximately 6%.
As I explored in this recent post, 60% of 2010 corporate FCPA enforcement actions involved (in whole or in part) employees of alleged state-owned or state-controlled enterprises (“SOE”). In these cases, the enforcement agencies generally allege that such enterprises are “instrumentalities” of a foreign government and that such employees are therefore “foreign officials” under the FCPA.
So far in 2011, it’s 100%.
DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA – Year in Review
A few weeks ago I ran a SEC FCPA enforcement year in review (here).
Today I highlight facts and figures from the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement program in 2010.
And what it year it had.
As noted in this recent DOJ release, “the Criminal Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement involved imposition of $1 billion in penalties in FY 2010, the largest in the history of FCPA enforcement.”
In comparison, in 2000 the DOJ did not bring one FCPA enforcement action. The past decade has thus witnessed a remarkable transformation – not as to the FCPA itself (the statute has not changed since 1998), but as to FCPA enforcement and theories of prosecution both at the DOJ and the SEC.
As the DOJ’s former Assistant Chief for FCPA enforcement candidly stated (here), “the government sees a profitable program, and it’s going to ride that horse until it can’t ride it anymore.”
This post highlights the 16 DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010. Not included are BAE (an enforcement action (see here) in which the DOJ did not even charge FCPA offenses) or Lindsey Manufacturing (see here) given that the company was indicted and thus the enforcement action remains open.
Of the 16 enforcement actions, 6 of the actions were in Panalpina related actions; 2 were the related Bonny Island, Nigeria actions; and 2 were the related Alliance One and Universal actions. Thus, if one looks at unique enforcement actions (the best way to analyze FCPA facts and figures in my opinion), the DOJ broght 9 unique corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2010.
In the 16 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010, the DOJ brought in $870 million in criminal fines – thrown in the $400 million BAE enforcement action if you insist and the number is $1.27 billion.
Tack on the SEC’s recovery (both civil penalties and disgorgement) in 2010 corporate FCPA enforcement actions of approximately $530 million and one finds $1.8 billion in corporate FCPA fines, penalties and disgorgement in 2010.
DOJ FCPA enforcement in 2010 was both large ($240 million in criminal fines against both Technip and Snamprogetti, $93.6 million in criminal fines against Daimler) and small ($32,000 against Mercator Corporation in the bizarre James Giffen related case involving two snowmobiles, and $1.7 million against RAE Systems).
The numbers present some interesting results.
Despite aggressive DOJ rhetoric and despite the DOJ seeking a sentencing guidelines enhancement applicable to FCPA offenses (see here) in 10 of 12 FCPA enforcement actions where an analysis was possible, the DOJ agreed to a criminal fine below the minimum range suggested by the sentencing guidelines.
In these 10 cases, the average was approximately 25% below the minimum guidelines range and the distribution range was 55% below the minimum guidelines range (Pride International) and 5% below the minimum guidelines range (Panalpina).
The only two corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2010 where the company paid a criminal fine within the guidelines range were Alliance One (the company voluntarily disclosed and receive a non-prosecution agreement) and Alcatel-Lucent.
[Note – why are only 12 of the 16 enforcement actions included in the above analysis? I excluded Innospec because the company’s claimed inability to pay (but see here) resulted in an invalid fine to guidelines analysis; I excluded Mercator Corp. because the DOJ and the company could not even agree on what guidelines to use; and I excluded Noble Corp. and RAE Systems (both enforcement actions resolved via an NPA) because the DOJ never set forth a guidelines range in the agreement or related documents].
During the November 2010 Senate FCPA hearing (see here) an issue discussed was the general lack of individual DOJ FCPA prosecutions.
How many corporate FCPA enforcement actions involved related individual prosecutions of company employees (not talking agents here such as in Innospec) by the DOJ (recognizing that such prosecutions may be forthcoming in the future)?
Of the 17 corporate DOJ enforcement actions or indictments (Lindsey Manufacturing is back in the mix here) 12 of the 17 enforcement actions (70%) have not involved (at least thus far) DOJ prosecutions of company employees. Included in the 12 enforcement actions are the top 3 from 2010 from a criminal fine perspective: Technip, Snamprogetti, and Daimler.
What about non-prosecution and deferred prosecutions vs. old fashioned law enforcement (i.e., if a company committed a crime the DOJ charged it and if the company did not commit a crime the DOJ did not charge it)?
2010 saw 15 such resolution vehicles (4 NPAs) and (11 DPAs).
As Gibson Dunn highlighted in this recent report, FCPA enforcement actions comprised approximately 50% of all DOJ NPA or DPA agreements.
Among the criticisms noted in the Gibson Dunn report is that “by continually entering DPAs and NPAs, the DOJ can shield its expansive interpretation of important statutes from judicial review.” As to the FCPA the report states, “because FCPA allegations against corporations rarely, if ever, go to trial, and DPAs and NPAs are subject to only minimal judicial scrutiny, the DOJ’s sometimes expansive interpretations of the FCPA is never truly tested.”
Spot on!
As evident from the material below, a typical way for DOJ to resolve corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 was for the parent company to enter into an NPA or DPA and for a subsidiary (usually a foreign subsidiary) to plea to a criminal charge. Daimler, Alliance One, Universal, ABB, Panalpina, Pride International, Royal Dutch Shell, and Alcatel-Lucent all involved such hybrid resolution vehicles.
In the SEC year in review piece, I noted that 97% of the $529,967,294 collected in SEC FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 appears to be in enforcement actions that were voluntarily or otherwise publicly disclosed and not the result of original investigation by either the SEC or DOJ.
What does this number look like for DOJ FCPA enforcement actions in 2010 – recognizing that by disclosure I am talking about voluntary disclosure in the traditional sense (i.e. the company disclosing the conduct at issue to the enforcement agencies) as well as other forms of public disclosure (such as identification in the U.N. Oil for Food Report, the result of a whistleblower complaint to U.S. authorities, the result of prior foreign law enforcement agency investigations, or based on disclosures by other companies)?
Of the $870 million in criminal fines collected by the DOJ in FCPA enforcement actions, 97% would appear to fit this description as well.
Thus, much like the SEC, the DOJ also appears to be a reactive agency when it comes to corporate FCPA enforcement.
Set forth below are facts and figures from each 2010 DOJ corporate FCPA enforcement action.
Innospec (March 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions; wire fraud; and FCPA anti-bribery and books and records violations.
Resolution Vehicle: Plea.
Guidelines Range: $101.5 – $203 million.
Penalty: $14.1 million (based on claimed inability to pay).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – three years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Daimler (March 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Daimler AG (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions and violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions); DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions); DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions); Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Daimler AG (deferred prosecution agreement); DaimlerChrysler China Ltd. (deferred prosecution agreement); DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia SAO (plea); Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH (plea).
Guidelines Range: $116 – $232 million.
Penalty: $93.6 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – three years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Technip (June 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $318.4 – $636.8 Million
Penalty: $240 million (25% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – two years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Snamprogetti (July 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and aiding and abetting FCPA anti-bribery violations.
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $300 Million – $600 Million
Penalty: $240 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range)
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Alliance One (August 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Alliance One International AG (conspiracy to violate the FCPA, violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, and violations of the FCPA’s books and records provisions); Alliance One Tobacco Osh LLC (conspiracy to violate the FCPA, violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and books and records provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Alliance One International Inc. (non-prosecution agreement); Alliance One International AG (plea); Alliance One Tobacco Osh LLC (plea).
Guidelines Range: $8.4 – $16.8 million.
Penalty: $9.45 million.
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – three years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.
Universal Corp. (August 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Universal Leaf Tabacos Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Universal Corporation (non-prosecution agreement); Universal Leaf Tabacos Ltd. (plea).
Guidelines Range: $6.3 – $12.6 million
Penalty: $4.4 million (30% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – three years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Mercator Corp. (August 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: FCPA anti-bribery violations.
Resolution Vehicle: Plea.
Guidelines Range: The parties disagreed as to whether the 2009 or 2008 guidelines applied. If 2009, $650,000 – $1.3 million; If 2008, $30,000 to $60,000.
Penalty: $32,000.
Disclosure: Unclear.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes (but Giffen pleaded to a misdemeanor tax violation).
ABB Ltd. (September 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: ABB Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions); ABB Ltd. – Jordan (conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: ABB Ltd. (deferred prosecution agreement); ABB Inc. (plea); ABB Ltd. – Jordan (plea).
Guidelines Range: $30.42 – $60.2 million.
Penalty: $19 million (approximately 38% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Company agreed to follow the recommendations of an independent compliance consultant.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.
Lindsey Manuf. (October 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.
Resolution Vehicle: N/A
Guidelines Range: N/A
Penalty: N/A
Disclosure: Unclear.
Monitor: N/A
Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.
Panalpina (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. (conspiracy to violate and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions) ; Panalpina Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions and aiding and abetting certain customers in violating the FCPA books and records provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Panalpina World (deferred prosecution agreement); Panalpina Inc. (plea).
Guidelines Range: 72.8 million to $145.6 million.
Penalty: 70.6 million (approximately 5% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Pride International (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Pride International Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions); Pride Forasol S.A.S. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions, violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, and aiding and abetting violations of the FCPA’s books and records provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Pride International Inc. (deferred prosecution agreement); Pride Forasol (plea).
Guidelines Range: $72.5 – $145 million.
Penalty: $32.6 million (approximately 55% below the minimum guideline range).
Voluntary Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged: No.
Tidewater (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Tidewater Marine International Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions and violating the FCPA’s books and records provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $10.5 – $21 million.
Penalty: $7.4 million (30% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Transocean (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Transocean Inc. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions; violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions; and aiding and abetting FCPA books and record violations).
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $16.8 – $33.6 million.
Penalty: $13.4 million (20% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Noble Corp. (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: N/A
Resolution Vehicle: Non-prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: Not addressed.
Penalty: $2.6 million.
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Royal Dutch Shell (November 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions; aiding and abetting FCPA books and records violations).
Resolution Vehicle: Deferred prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: $34.2 – $68.4 million.
Penalty: $30 million (approximately 15% below the minimum guidelines range).
Disclosure: No.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
RAE Systems (December 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Although a non-prosecution agreement, the agreements states “knowing violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.”
Resolution Vehicle: Non-prosecution agreement.
Guidelines Range: Not addressed.
Penalty: $1.7 million.
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: No.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: No.
Alcatel-Lucent (December 2010)
See here for the prior analysis and principal allegations.
Charges: Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (FCPA books and records and internal control provisions); Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G., and Alcatel Centroamerica S.A. (conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery, books and records, and internal control provisions).
Resolution Vehicle: Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (deferred prosecution agreement); Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G., and Alcatel Centroamerica S.A. pleas.
Guidelines Range: $86.58 – $173.16 million.
Penalty: $92 million.
Disclosure: Yes.
Monitor: Yes – three years.
Individuals Charged by DOJ: Yes.
Analyzing Alcatel-Lucent
In 2006, Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. (“Alcatel”) was formed when an Alcatel S.A. subsidiary merged with Lucent Technologies, Inc. Prior to the merger, Alcatel was a worldwide provider of a wide variety of telecommunications equipment and services and other technology products. The company operated in more than 130 countries directly and through certain wholly owned and indirect subsidiaries including in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia and Taiwan. From 1998 until late 2006, ADR shares of Alcatel were traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
In 2007, the right side of the hyphen – Lucent Technologies – settled an FCPA enforcement action (see here and here).
In 2010, in what was the last FCPA enforcement action of the year, the left side of the hyphen – Alcatel and certain of its subsidiaries – settled an FCPA enforcement.
This post analyzes the Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action. The enforcement action (all 360 pages) is a FCPA feast. Principally based on the lack of due diligence of third-party agents, the enforcement action serves up the following: lots of alleged state-owned or state-controlled telecommunication entities; consultants hired after contracts were secured; a purported telecommunications consultant with only perfume experience; payments to legislators and political parties; things of value including excessive travel and entertainment expenses and crystal for the secretary; joint ventures; and payments from New York and Miami bank accounts.
The Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $137.4 million ($92 million criminal fine via DOJ plea agreements and a deferred prosecution agreement; $45.4 million in disgorgement via a SEC settled complaint).
DOJ
The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information against Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. (“Alcatel”) resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement and a criminal information against Alcatel-Lucent France S.A. (“Alcatel CIT”), Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. (“Alcatel Standard”), and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. (“ACR”) resolved through plea agreements. See here for the DOJ release.
Alcatel-Lucent S.A. Criminal Information
The information (here) begins with a heading “Background Regarding Alcatel’s Business Practices and the State of Its Internal Controls.”
It states as follows. “Starting in the 1990s and continuing through at least last 2006, Alcatel pursued many of its business opportunities around the world through the use of third-party agents and consultants. This business model was shown to be prone to corruption, as consultants were repeatedly used as conduits for bribe payments to foreign officials (and business executives of private customers) to obtain or retain business in many countries.”
The information also highlights Alcatel’s “de-centralized business structure” which permitted different Alcatel employees around the world “to initially vet the the third-party consultants, and then rely on Executive 1 [a French citizen who served as Chief Executive Officer of Alcatel Standard in Basel, Switzerland] at Alcatel to perform due diligence on them.” According to the information, “this de-centralized structure and approval process permitted corruption to occur, as the local employees were more interested in obtaining business than ensuring that business was won ethically and legally.”
Further, the information alleges that “Executive 1 performed no due diligence of substance and remained, at best, deliberately ignorant of the true purpose behind the retention of and payment to many of the third-party consultants.” Specifically, the information alleges that “Executive 1 made no effort, or virtually no effort, to verify the information provided by the consultant in the Consultant Profile [a form the consultant was supposed to complete with information concerning its ownership, business activities, capabilities, banking arrangements, and professional references], apart from using Dun & Bradstreet reports to confirm the consultant’s existence and physical address.” According to the information, “if the paperwork was completed, regardless of any obvious issues (such as close relationships with foreign officials or a clear lack of skill, experience or telecommunications expertise), Executive 1 authorized hiring and paying the third-party consultant.”
As to payments to the consultants, the information alleges that “Alcatel Standard [a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in Switzerland and an entity “responsible for entering into most agreements with consultants worldwide on behalf of Alcatel and certain other entities] would contract with the third-party consultant and then Alcatel CIT [a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in France] would pay the consultant” including through a bank account at ABN Amro Bank in New York.
The information alleges as follows. “Often senior executives at Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR [a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcatel located and incorporated in Costa Rica], among others, knew bribes were being paid, or were aware of the high probability that many of these third-party consultants were paying bribes, to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. For example, in a significant number of instances, the consultant contracts were executed after Alcatel had already obtained the customer business, the consultant commissions were excessive, and lump sum payments were made to the consultants that did not appear to correspond to any one one contract.”
According to the information, “Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, ACR, and certain employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knew, or purposefully ignored” that much of the consultant documentation “did not accurately reflect the true nature and purpose of the agreements” and that “many of the invoices submitted by various third-party consultants falsely claimed that legitimate work had been completed, while the true purpose of the monies sought by the invoices was to funnel all or some of the money to foreign officials, directly and indirectly.”
The information alleges that “these transactions were designed to circumvent Alcatel’s internal controls system and were further undertaken knowing that they would not be accurately and fairly reflected in Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR’s books and records, which were included in the consolidated financial statements that Alcatel filed with the SEC.”
The information then contains ten separate sections: conduct in Costa Rica; conduct in Honduras; conduct in Malaysia; conduct in Taiwan; conduct in Kenya; conduct in Nigeria; conduct in Bangladesh; conduct in Ecuador; conduct in Nicaragua; and other consultancy agreements entered into without proper due diligence.
Costa Rica
The alleged conduct focuses on the actions of Christian Sapsizian and Edgar Valverde Acosta and consultancy agreements on behalf of Alcatel CIT with two Costa Rican consultants which were intended to make improper payments to Costa Rican government officials for telecommunications contracts. According to the indictment, Sapsizian (a French citizen) was a long-term employee of Alcatel and Alcatel CIT responsible for developing business in Latin America. Valverde (a Costa Rica citizen) served as the President of ACR and the Country Senior Officer of Costa Rica. See here for the prior enforcement actions against Sapsizian and Valverde.
According to the information, “both consultants had many personal contacts at ICE [Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad S.A. – a “wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Costa Rica responsible for awarding and administering public tenders for telecommunications contracts].
According to the information, Sapsizian’s supervisor, the President of Area 1 who worked in Miami, approved more than $18 million in payments to the consultants notwithstanding that the President of Area 1, according to Sapsizian, “told him on several occasions that he knew he was ‘risking jail time’ as a result of his approval of these payments, which he understood would, at least in part, ultimately wind up in the hands of public officials.”
The information alleges that various Alcatel entities “conducted insufficient due diligence” on the consultants and that “neither Alcatel nor any of its subsidiaries took sufficient steps to ensure that the consultants were complying with the FCPA or other relevant anti-corruption laws.”
According to the information, the above described payments were ultimately used to provide money to various ICE officials, a Costa Rica executive branch official, and a Costa Rica legislator, that ultimately assisted Alcatel CIT obtain a $44 million contract, a $149.5 million contract, a $109.5 million contract.
The information also alleges that Sapsizian “approved the payment of approximately $25,000 in travel, hotel, and other expenses incurred by ICE officials during a primarily pleasure trip to Paris” – a trip that “was partially intended to reward these government officials for providing Alcatel with lucrative contracts …”.
Based on this conduct, the information alleges that “employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knowingly circumvented Alcatel’s internal controls system and made inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC. As a result of the contracts won by Alcatel CIT in Costa Rica as a result of bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $23,661,000 in profits.”
Honduras
The information charges that “employees of ACR, along with Sapsizian, pursued business opportunities on behalf of Alcatel in Honduras with Hondutel [Empresa Hondurena de Telecomunicaciones – an alleged wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Honduras responsible for providing telecommunications services in Honduras including evaluating and awarding telecommunications contracts on behalf of the government of Honduras] and Conatel [Comision Nacional de Telecouniciaciones – an alleged Honduran government agency that regulated the telecommunications sector in Honduras that issued licenses and concessions for fixed-line and wireless telephony, data transmission and internet services].”
According to the information, Alcatel CIT and Alcatel Mexico made large commission payments to at least one consultant, knowing that all or some of the money paid to that consultant would be paid to a close relative of a Honduran government official, with the high probability that some or all of the money would be passed on to the Honduran government official, in exchange for favorable treatment of Alcatel, Alcatel CIT, and Alcatel Mexico.”
According to the information, the consultant was retained at the request of a high-ranking government official in the Honduran executive branch; however, the consultant was an exclusive distributor of “brand name perfumes” and had no contacts in, or prior experience with, the telecommunications industry in Honduras or anywhere else.
The information alleges that in retaining the consultant, “Alcatel Standard knowingly failed to conduct appropriate due dligence” and “did not follow up on numerous, obvious red flags.”
The information alleges that by utilizing the services of the consultant, Hondutel awarded Alcatel a $1 million contract and four additional contracts for a combined value of approximately $47 million.
The information also alleges that “Alcatel CIT and ACR employees arranged for several other Honduran government officials to take primarily pleasure trips to France, which were paid by Alcatel CIT or ACR directly.” In addition, the information charges that a “high-ranking executive at Hondutel” also “received gifts and improper payments from Alcatel CIT and ACR employees” including $2,000 for an educational trip for the official’s daughter and a trip to Paris (along with the official’s spouse) that mostly consisted of “touring activities via a chauffeur-driven vehicle.” Further, the information alleges that “Alcatel CIT also made payments to a Hondutel attorney who worked” on a contract secured by Alcatel including paying for a trip by the attorney and the attorney’s daughter to Paris.
Based on this conduct, the information alleges that “employees of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR knowingly circumvented Alcatel’s internal controls system and caused inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel CIT, Alcatel Standard, and ACR, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC.” According to the information, “as a result of the bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $870,000 in profits.”
Malaysia
The information alleges that “in at least 17 instances in or around 2004 to in or around 2006, Alcatel Malaysia [a joint venture in which Alcatel owned a majority share of and exercised control of] employees, with the consent and approval of Alcatel Malaysia’s management, such as Executive 2 [Alcatel Malaysia’s Country Senior Officer] and Executive 3 [Alcatel Malaysia’s Chief Financial Officer], made improper payments to Telekcom Malaysia [an alleged state-owned and controlled telecommunications provider in Malaysia responsible for awarding telecommunications contracts 43% owned by the Malaysian Ministry of Finance] employees in exchange for nonpublic information relating to ongoing public tenders.” According to the information, “the documents purchased generally consisted of internal assessments by Celcom’s [Telekom Malaysia’s wholly owned subsidiary] tender committee of non-public pricing information.” According to the information, “eight of the 17 improper payments to Telekom Malaysia employees were made in connection with a single public tender that Alcatel Malaysia ultimately won …”. The information alleges that the payments were falsely characterized as “document fees” or accurately as “purchase of tender documents.”
The information further alleges that Alcatel Standard entered into a consulting agreement for more than $500,000 with a Malaysian consultant even though “Alcatel typically paid its agents and consultants commission rates based on the total value of a contract rather than pay a fixed fee for services.” According to the information, “at the time the payments were made to Malaysian Consultant 1, Alcatel Malaysia and Alcatel Standard were aware of a significant risk that Malaysian Consultant 1 would pass on all or a part of these payments to foreign officials.”
The information further alleges that Alcatel Standard entered into another consulting agreement with another consultant by which Alcatel Standard agreed to pay the consultant $500,000 for a “strategic intelligence report on Celcom’s positioning in the celluar industry in relation to its competitors.” According to the information, despite paying the consultant “half a million dollars for this report … there is no evidence that Malaysian Consultant 2 did any actual work for Alcatel Malaysia or ever produced the report.” The information states that “Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia were aware of a significant risk that Malaysian Consultant 2 was serving merely as a conduit for bribe payments to foreign officials.”
The information further alleges, in summary fashion, as follows. “Alcatel Malaysia lacked internal controls, such as formal policies covering expenditure for gifts, travel, and entertainment for customers, leading to Alcatel Malaysia employees giving lavish gifts to Telekom Malaysia officials.”
Based on this conduct, the information alleges that “Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia knowingly circumvented Alcatel’s internal controls system and caused inaccurate and false entries in the books and records of Alcatel Standard and Alcatel Malaysia, whose financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC.” The information states that “although Alcatel won the $85 million Celcom contract, Alcatel did not generate any profits from it.”
Taiwan
According to the information, Alcatel pursued business in Taiwan through its indirect subsidiary Alcatel SEL, a company located and incorporated in Germany. The information states that Executive 4 [a German citizen who served on Alcatel SEL’s director of international business ans sales] hired two third-party consultants to assist Alcatel SEL and Taisel, a joint venture 60% owned by an Alcatel subsidiary in obtaiing an axle counting contracts from the TRA [the Taiwan Railway Administration – an alleged wholly state-owned authority in Taiwan responsible for managing, maintaining, and running passenger freight services on Taiwan’s railroad lines].” According to the information, “both consultants claimed to have close ties to certain legislators in the Taiwanese government who were understood to have influence in awarding the contract due to their particular responsibilities in the legislature.”
The information alleges that the “purpose behind Alcatel’s hiring of Taiwanese Consultant 1 was so that Alcatel SEL could make improper payments to three Taiwanese legislators who had influence in the award of the TRA axle counting contract.” According to the information, after Taisel has been awarded the contract, “Alcatel SEL paid Taiwanese Consultant 1 a commission of approximately $921,413 by wire transfer from Alcatel SEL’s ABN Amro bank account in New York” and that Taiwanese Consultant 1, in turn, “made improper payments to two Taiwanese legislators: Legislator 2 and Legislator 3 – both members of the Legislative Yuan, the unicameral legislative assembly of the Republic of China. Among other things, the information alleges: that the the consultant promised approximately $180,000 in campaign funds for Legislator 3’s 2004 election campaign and then paid Legislator 3 approximately $90,000 after Alcatel SEL won the bid; that Executive 4 and the consultant “spent approximately $8,000 on trips to Germany” that were “primarly for personal, entertainment purposes, with only nominal business justification;” that Alcatel SEL paid the consultant “approximately $3,000 to reimburse it for a set of crystal given to the secretary of the Taiwan Transportation and Communications Minister.”
The information also alleges that Executive 4 also hired another consultant because “Taiwanese Consultant 2’s owner was the brother of Legislator 4, who had influence with respect to TRA matters.” The information alleges that “to bribe Legislator 4, Alcatel SEL arranged for a bogus consulting agreement between Taisel and Taiwanese Consultant 2.”
The information alleges as follows. “Neither Taiwanese Consultant 1 nor Taiwanese Consultant 2 provided legitimate services to Alcatel or Alcatel SEL. Their only function was to pass on improper payments to three Taiwanese legislators on behalf of Alcatel SEL and Taisel. On or about December 30, 2003 Taisel’s bid was accepted by the TRA, which granted Taisel a supply contract worth approximately $19.2 million …”.
According to the information, “Alcatel SEL’s financial results were included in the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel submitted to the SEC” and “as a result of contracts won by Alcatel in Taiwan as a result of bribe payments, Alcatel earned approximately $4,342,600 in profits.”
Kenya
The information describes a Kenyan joint venture (“Kenyan JV”) formed by a French telecommunications company (“French Telecom”) and a Kenyan company (“Kenyan Company”) to apply for a mobile telecommunications license that the Kenyan JV was awarded for approximately $55 million. Several companies, including Alcatel CIT, bid to provide approximately $87 million in infrastructure and services to the Kenyan JV. The information alleges that Alcatel CIT was informed by French Telecom that Alcatel CIT “would win the bid under one condition: an Alcatel entity had to make improper payments to an intermediary in the approximate amount of $20 million.”
The information then describes the intermediary and payments made to it and concludes with the following paragraph. “After entering into the various contracts, the intermediary provided monthly reports and economic intelligence on the telecommunications market in Africa, but never provided any information related to the 2nd GSM license or the Kenyan telecommunications market. In light of the huge amounts of the payments, the fact that the intermediary performed little legitimate work in connection with the 2nd GSM license, and the fact that Company Z [another company suggested by the intermediary] was an offshore holding of Kenyan Company, there is a high probability that all or a portion of the approximately $20 million in payments made by Alcatel CIT to the intermediary and the related entities was passed on to Kenyan Company, which in turn passed on the funds to Kenyan government officials who had played a role in awarding the original contract to French Telecom.”
Nigeria
The information states that between 1999 and 2007, Alcatel pursued business with various Nigerian customers and alleges as follows.
“Certain Alcatel subsidiaries made improper payments to government officials in Nigeria in the following contexts: (a) payments made to government officials for the purpose of reducing tax or other liabilities; (b) payments made to government officials to obtain security services from the Nigerian police; (c) a payment of approximately $75,000 to a former Nigerian Ambassador to the United Nations for the purpose of arranging meetings between Alcatel representatives and Nigerian Senior Government Official 1, a high-ranking official in the Nigerian executive branch; (d) payments made to government officials for the purpose of securing recovery of a debt totaling approximately $36.5 million owed by the government of Nigeria to ITT Nigeria [an Alcatel entity]; and (e) a payment to a People’s Democractic Party official. These payments were not described accurately and fairly on Alcatel’s books and records.”
The information also alleges as follows. “Alcatel personnel also made improper payments via a consultant to a Senior Executive at Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1” and “Alcatel also made large improper payments to two other consultants which were owned at least in part by a relative of the Senior Executive at Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1.” “These payments were not described accurately and fairly on Alcatel’s books and records.” There is nothing in the information to suggest that Nigerian Telecommunications Company 1 was a state-owned or controlled enterprise and the information refers to payments to the Senior Executive as “commercial bribe payments.”
Bangladesh
The information generally alleges that “Alcatel generated a significant portion of its revenue in Bangladesh from Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board, the state-controlled telecommunications services provider” and that Alcatel used an agent in Bangladesh but “Alcatel Standard did not conduct adequate due diligence” on the consultant. In addition, the information alleges that Alcatel Standard retained the agent in connection with a submarine cable project connecting fourteen countries – Alcatel’s portion of the contract was approximately $258 million. According to the information, Alcatel CIT paid the consultant approximately $626,492 in compensation for services provided in connection with the project and approximately $2,524,939 in connection with various upgrades to a predecessor of the project “aware of a significant risk that Bangladsh Consultant would pass on all or a part of these payments to foreign officials.”
Ecuador
According to the information, “Alcatel conducted business in Ecuador with three major telecommunicatios customers, all of which were state-owned: Andinatel, Pacifictel, and Empresa Municipl de Telecomunicaciones, Aqua Potable, Alcantarillados y Saneamiento. The information alleges that Alcatel retained a consultant in Ecuador (“a wealthy businessman”), but that the consultant and the entities he controlled “did little legitimate work for Alcatel.” The information alleges as follows. “Instead, it was anticipated that Ecuadorian Consultant would funnel a portion of the funds Alcatel paid him to officials of the Ecuadorian state-owned telecommunications companies in order to secure business and other benefits for Alcatel. Improper payments were anticipated to be made or offered in connection with at least nine contracts with government-owned telecommunication companies.”
According to the information, at least some of Alcatel’s payments to the consultant wre made to bank accounts in Miami.
In addition, the information alleges as follows. “Alcatel also paid for trips taken by officials of the three telecommunications companies that were principally for pleasure. For example, both the Vice-President and the Chairman of the Board of Pacifictel received improper all-expenses paid trips to France.”
Nicaragua
According to the information, “Alcatel’s only customer in Nicaragua was Empresa Nicaraguense de Telecomunicaciones S.A. (“Enitel”) which was state-owned during the relevant time period.” The Ecuadorian consultant referenced above, also served as Alcatel’s consultant in Nicaragua. According to the information, “with the assistance of Ecuadorian Consultant, Alcatel CIT secured two contracts with Enitel” valued at approximately $1.6 million and $370,000. The information alleges that Alcatel CIT made payments totaling approximately $229,3822 to the Miami bank account of the consultant and that the consultant “likely used a portion of these payments to bribe certain key Enitel officials in order to influence Enitel to award the two contracts to Alcatel, to obtain confidential information about competing bids, and to secure favorable financial terms.” The information alleges that payments to the consultant were “identified in Alcatel’s books and records as consulting fees, and thus the description of those payments did not accurately and fairly reflect those transactions.”
The information further alleges that “Alcatel CIT also provided a trip to Paris and Madrid to two Enitel officials in late 2001 in order to encourage the execution of one of the two contracts” and that the “purpose of the trip was largley for pleasure, and it appears that Alcatel CIT covered all travel costs and a large portion of the expenses.”
The substantive portion of the information ends with a section titled “Other Consultancy Agreements Entered Into Without Proper Due Diligence.” The allegations concern consultants in Angola, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Mali. The customers associated with the consultants were either allegedly state-owned or private companies.
Based on all of the above conduct, the information charges Alcatel with violations of the FCPA’s internal control provisions. The information alleges that Alcatel “knowingly: (a) failed to implement sufficient anti-bribery compliance policies and procedures; (b) failed to maintain a sufficient system for the selection and approval of consultants, which, in turn, permitted corrupt conduct to occur at certain subsidiaries; (c) entered into purported business consulting agreements with no apparent basis, and without performing any due diligence, sometimes after the cmpany had already won the relevant project; (d) failed to verify information provided by consultants, including failing to follow up in circumstances in which managers knew or were substantially certain illicit activity was taking place; (e) failed to prevent consultants from using multiple shell companies to receive commissions in excess of 10% knowing there was a substantial likelihood those consultants were acting as conduits for corrupt payments; (f) failed to conduct appropriate audits of payments to purported business consultants; (g) failed to prohibit lump sum payments being made to consultants that did not correspond to any contract; (h) failed to prohibit payments to consultants and public officials pursuant to an oral ‘gentlemen’s agreement’; (i) failed to appropriately investigate and respond to allegations of corrupt payments and discipline employees involved in making corrupt payments; (j) failed to establish a sufficiently empowered and competent Corporate Compliance Officer; (k) failed to exercise due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct; (l) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the company’s compliance and ethics program was followed, including monitoring and internal audits to detect criminal conduct; (m) failed to evaluate regularly the effectiveness of the company’s compliance and ethics program; and (n) failed to provide appropriate incentives to perform in accordance with the compliance and ethics program.”
Based on the above conduct, the information also charges Alcatel with FCPA books and records violations for (a) drafting sham business consulting agreements to justify third party payments; (b) mis-characterizing bribes in the corporate books and records as consulting fees and other seemingly legitimate expenses; (c) justifying payments to purported business consultants based on false invoices; and (d) entering into purported business consulting agreements with no basis, sometimes after Alcatel had won the relevant project.
Alcatel-Lucent DPA
The DOJ’s charges against Alcatel were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement (see here).
Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel admitted, accepted and acknowledged that it was responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, agents, and those of Alcatel’s subsidiaries as described above.
The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement “based on the individual facts and circumstances” of the case and Alcatel-Lucent. Among the factors stated are the following.
(a) following press reports concerning bribery by Alcatel, S.A., in Costa Rica, the company investigated and disclosed over the course of several years to the Department and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission the misconduct described above;
(b) Alcatel-Lucent conducted a global internal investigation concerning bribery and related misconduct;
(c) Alcatel-Lucent reported its findings to the Department and the SEC;
(d) after limited and inadequate cooperation for a substantial period of time, Alcatel-Lucent substantially improved its cooperation with the Department’s investigation of this matter, as well as the SEC’s investigation;
(e) Alcatel-Lucent undertook remedial measures, including the implementation of an enhanced compliance program, and agreed to undertake further remedial measures as contemplated by the DPA;
(f) on its own initiative and at a substantial financial cost, Alcatel-Lucent determined as matter of company policy to no longer use third party sales and marketing agents in conducting its worldwide business; and
(g) Alcatel-Lucent agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any ongoing investigation of the conduct of Alcatel-Lucent and its employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and subsidiaries relating to violations of the FCPA.
As stated in the DPA, the fine range for the above describe conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was $86.58 – $173.16 million. Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel-Lucent agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $92 million – a rather rare instance of an FCPA criminal fine actually being within the Guidelines range and not below even the minimum range suggested by the Guidelines. Also relevant is that Alcatel’s culpability score was reduced only by -1, reflecting that Alcatel did not receive cooperation credit as many FCPA corporate defendants do receive.
The DPA states that above fine is appropriate given, among other things, “penalties related to the same conduct in Costa Rica [see here], and the extraordinary remedial step of terminating use of third-party sales and marketing agents.”
Pursuant to the DPA, Alcatel agreed to a host of compliance undertakings including the retention of an independent compliance monitor “who is a French national” for a three year term. Corporate Monitors used to be common in FCPA enforcement actions (circa 2005-2008), but required use of corporate monitors has become less common over the past few years.
As is standard in FCPA DPAs, Alcatel agreed not to make any public statement “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by Alcatel-Lucent as set forth” in the DPA and Alcatel-Lucent further agreed to only issue a press release in connection with the DPA if the DOJ does not object to the release.
As to potential debarment issues, the DPA states as follows. “The Department agrees to bring to the attention of governmental and other debarment authorities the facts and circumstances relating to the nature of the conduct underlying this Agreement, including the nature and quality of Alcatel-Lucent’s cooperation and remediation. By agreeing to provide this information to debarment authorities, the Department is not agreeing to advocate on behalf of Alcatel-Lucent, but rather is providing facts to be evaluated independently by the debarment authorities.”
Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. Criminal Information
The criminal information against the above Alcatel subsidiaries is virtually identical to the above-described criminal information against Alcatel, albeit it is limited to Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, and Taiwan conduct. Based on this conduct, the information charges the entities with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records and internal control provisions. According to the information, the purpose of the conspiracy was to “secure the assistance of officials of various governments, including those in Costa Rica, Honduras, Malaysia, and Taiwan, in obtaining and retaining lucrative telecommunications business through the offer, promise, and payment of bribes.”
Alcatel-Lucent France S.A., Alcatel-Lucent Trade International A.G. and Alcatel CentroAmerica, S.A. Plea Agreements
The above described charges were resolved via separate plea agreements with Alcatel-Lucent France (here), Alcatel-Lucent Trade International (here) and Alcatel CentroAmercia (here). Each plea agreement states that in light of the overall dispositions with the other Alcatel-Lucent entities and “the interrelationship among the charges and conduct underlying those dispositions” the agreed upon fine is $500,000.
SEC
The SEC’s civil complaint (here) alleges in summary fashion as follows.
“From December 2001 through June 2006, Alcatel, S.A., now called Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. (“Alcatel” or the “company”), through its subsidiaries and agents, violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying more than $8 million in bribes to foreign government officials. Alcatel made these payments to influence acts and decisions by these foreign government officials to obtain or retain business, with the knowledge and approval of certain management level personnel of the relevant Alcatel subsidiaries. Alcatel lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent or detect such improper payments, and improperly recorded the payments in its books and records.”
“During this period, Alcatel’s agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to foreign government officials in several countries to obtain or retain business:
• From December 2001 to October 2004, Alcatel’s agents and/or subsidiaries paid at least $7 million in bribes to government officials of Costa Rica to obtain or retain three contracts to provide telephone services in Costa Rica totaling approximately $303 million.
• From December 2002 to June 2006, Alcatel’s agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Honduras to obtain or retain five telecommunications contracts totaling approximately $48 million.
• From October 2003 to May 2004, Alcatel’s agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Taiwan to obtain or retain a railway axle counting contract valued at approximately $27 million.
• From October 2004 to February 2006, Alcatel’s agents and/or subsidiaries paid bribes to government officials of Malaysia to obtain or retain a telecommunications contract valued at approximately $85 million.”
“All of these payments were undocumented or improperly recorded as consulting fees in the books of Alcatel’s subsidiaries, and then consolidated into Alcatel’s financial statements. A lax corporate control environment aided Alcatel’s improper conduct. Alcatel failed to detect or investigate numerous red flags suggesting that its business consultants were likely making illicit payments and gifts to government officials in these countries at the direction of certain Alcatel employees. The respective heads of several Alcatel subsidiaries and geographical regions, some of whom reported directly to Alcatel’s executive committee, authorized extremely high commission payments under circumstances in which they failed to determine whether such payments were, in part, to be funneled to government officials in violation of the FCPA. These high-level employees therefore knew, or were severely reckless in
not knowing, that Alcatel paid bribes to foreign government officials.”
The SEC complaint contains allegations about the same “Costa Rica Bribery Scheme,” “The Honduras Bribery Scheme,” “The Taiwan Bribery Scheme,” and “The Malaysia Bribery Scheme” referenced above. Typically, SEC complaints in FCPA matters are more broad than DOJ resolution documents, yet in this case the SEC complaint is more narrow than the DOJ resolution documents in that the SEC complaint does not contain any allegations as to conduct in Kenya, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Angola, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Mali – as does the DOJ information.
Based on the above conduct, the SEC charged Alcatel with FCPA anti-bribery and books and records and internal control violations and knowingly failing to implement a system of internal controls and knowingly falsifying books and records.
As to books and records the complaint alleges as follows.
“Specifically, A1catel failed to keep accurate books and records by (1) entering into consulting agreements retroactively; (2) establishing and using a system of intermediaries to obscure the source and destination of funds; (3) making payments pursuant to business consulting agreements that inaccurately described the services provided; (4) generating false invoices and other false documents to justify payments; (5) disbursing funds in cash with inaccurate documentation authorizing or supporting the withdrawals; (6) recording illicit payments as legitimate consulting fees; and (7) recording bribes as payment for legitimate services.”
As to internal controls, the complaint alleges as follows.
“Alcatel failed to implement adequate internal controls to comply with the
company’s NYSE listing, including the detection and prevention of violations of the FCPA. First, Alcatel and/or its subsidiaries falsified books and records, entered into agreements retroactively, and obscured the purpose for, and ultimate recipient of, illicit payments. Alcatel used business consultants and intermediaries to funnel bribes in at least four countries. Alcatel created and used false invoices and payment documentation under business consulting agreements that described services that were never intended to be rendered. Illicit payments were falsely recorded as expenses for consulting fees.”
“Second, Alcatel also routinely circumvented the internal controls the company had in place. Although the company in theory had a policy of “checks and balances” to authorize the retention of business consultants, which required several signatures to approve the retention of, and payment to, business consultants, Alcatel employees often violated that policy. In numerous instances, Alcatel officials responsible for reviewing due diligence reports on consultants failed to conduct any review of the documents or could not read the language in which the documents were written. Alcatel employees also entered into agreements retroactively and obscured the amounts paid to business consultants by splitting the payments among separate
agreements (to conceal the high commissions Alcatel paid). Finally, Alcatel Standard’s due diligence on business consultants was inadequate, and Alcatel CIT often paid business consultants without adequate proof of services rendered. Alcatel CIT failed to establish robust controls over cash disbursements, allowed manual payments without documentation, and Alcatel’s FCPA compliance function was understaffed and lacked independence. Alcatel also failed to conduct thorough anti-bribery and corruption training.”
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Alcatel agreed to an injunction prohibiting future FCPA violations and agreed to pay disgorgement of $45.372 million.
In a relese (here), Robert Khuzami (Director of the SEC’s enforcement division) stated as follows. ““Alcatel and its subsidiaries failed to detect or investigate numerous red flags suggesting their employees were directing sham consultants to provide gifts and payments to foreign government officials to illegally win business. Alcatel’s bribery scheme was the product of a lax corporate control environment at the company.” Glenn Gordon (Associate Director of Enforcement in the SEC’s Miami office) added, “the serious sanctions Alcatel has agreed to, including paying back all net profits made on the contracts Alcatel illegally obtained, should serve as a reminder that we are committed to enforcing the FCPA and a level playing field for companies seeking to obtain or retain business in other countries.”
In a company press release (here), Steve Reynolds, Alcatel-Lucent General Counsel, stated as follow. “We take responsibility for and regret what happened and have implemented policies and procedures to prevent these violations from happening again. The violations largely occurred prior to the merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies and involved improper activities in several countries. These settlements resolve the company’s FCPA liability with the DOJ and SEC. We are pleased to have reached these settlements and look forward to putting these matters behind us. Alcatel-Lucent, created as a result of the merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies at the end of 2006, is a radically different company today: It has different management, including a new CEO, a new executive committee and a different Board of Directors; It has a zero-tolerance policy regarding bribery and corruption and has a system in place with strong processes and Internet-based and live training designed to prevent these types of situations in all aspects of our business; and as the first in its industry to do so, Alcatel-Lucent announced in 2008 that it would terminate the use of sales agents and consultants — the primary means by which certain former employees made the improper payments involved in the violations described in the DOJ and SEC settlement papers.”
Martin Weinstein (here) of Willkie Farr & Gallagher represented the Alcatel entities.