Friday Roundup
It has been a few weeks since my last Friday Roundup.
As a result this is a souped-up edition.
Is paying an FCPA fine merely a cost of business, are FCPA internal investigations getting just a bit out-of-hand, have you heard that a new cottage industry of FCPA experts has emerged, quit picking on Canada, will Julian Messent (or others) be prosecuted for FCPA violations, Assistant Attorney General Breuer on the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, Proclamation 7750 news, and a son who wants to keep the New York condo … it’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Is Paying an FCPA Fine Merely a Cost of Business?
One may wonder, and legitimately so, whether getting caught for violating the FCPA is simply a cost of doing business whereby the company pays a fine and then continues to do business, including with, in many cases, the U.S. government. See here for my post on Siemens – The Year After, here for my post on BAE’s recent $40 million contract with the FBI (note because of the facade of FCPA enforcement, BAE was not charged with violating the FCPA – see here).
Denis McInerney, Chief of the DOJ’s Fraud Section, rejected such an assertion during an October 21st speech before the American Bar Association.
According to Inside U.S. Trade, McInerney “sought to rebut charges that FCPA enforcement relies too heavily on settlement agreements and that it is therefore like a licensing regime under which ‘companies are allowed to bribe, but if caught they have to pay a fee.'” According to Inside U.S. Trade, McInerney said that in the past two years, DOJ has imposed fines of $59 million, $19 million, $365 million, $338 million, $400 million, $376 million, $579 million and $800 million and he “emphasized that the companies paying these penalties are subject to monitoring which can lead to criminal prosecution if new offenses occur.” According to Inside U.S. Trade, McInerney said “I guarantee you that these firms do not view these are mere licensing fees.”
Is This Getting a Bit Out of Hand?
Avon previously disclosed the existence of an internal investigation focused on potential FCPA issues (see here for the prior post).
Here is what the company said in its 10-Q filing (here) yesterday:
“As previously reported, we have engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which is being conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008. As we reported in October 2008, we voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies of our internal investigation. We are continuing to cooperate with both agencies and inquiries by them, including but not limited to, signing tolling agreements, translating and producing documents and assisting with interviews.
As previously reported in July 2009, in connection with the internal investigation, we commenced compliance reviews regarding the FCPA and related U.S. and foreign laws in additional countries in order to evaluate our compliance efforts. We are conducting these compliance reviews in a number of other countries selected to represent each of the Company’s four other international geographic segments. The internal investigation and compliance reviews are focused on reviewing certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, and payments to third−party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees. The internal investigation and compliance reviews of these matters are ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with both agencies with respect to these matters. At this point we are unable to predict the duration, scope, developments in, results of, or consequences of the internal investigation and compliance reviews.”
Here is what Avon had to say in the fling about its net global expenses:
“The increase in Net Global expenses for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, was primarily attributable to significant professional and related fees associated with the FCPA investigation and compliance reviews described in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements included herein of approximately $24 (up approximately $17 from the three months ended September 30, 2009) and approximately $72 (up approximately $49 from the nine months ended September 30, 2009), respectively. The increase in Net Global expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 was also due to higher costs associated with global initiatives and costs associated with business acquisitions. Professional and related fees associated with the FCPA investigation and compliance reviews, while difficult to predict, are expected to continue during the course of this investigation.”
Those figures are not mere dollars, but millions of dollars. And, as noted in the disclosure, the expenses are expected to increase.
On a much smaller (yet still meaningful) scale, on August 31st, Orthofix disclosed (here) the existence of an internal investigation relating to FCPA issues focused on its Mexican subsidiaries, an entity that accounts “for approximately one percent of the Company’s consolidated net sales and consolidated total assets.”
Recently, Orthofix provided this update in an 8-K filing (here):
“Operating income in the third quarter of 2010 included the impact of $3.7 million in legal expenses associated with the DOJ investigation of the bone growth stimulation industry and the Company’s internal investigation into its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in its subsidiary in Mexico.”
Newsweek Notices FCPA Inc.
Newsweek recently carried a short blurb (here) titled “Going After Graft.” Among other things, the piece states:
“With prosecutions likely to continue—the FBI has doubled the number of agents tasked to FCPA cases—business is responding in kind. Law firms are competing for top FCPA talent, banks financing international deals are insisting on anti-bribery stipulations in contracts, and a new cottage industry of experts has emerged, offering country-by-country advice on gifts and local laws. In the words of an FBI spokesperson, FCPA are ‘four letters you need to be aware of if you’re doing business in the international marketplace.'”
Quit Picking On Canada
What if, in the U.S., there was no fallback FCPA books and records and internal control charges, there was no voluntary disclosure culture, there were no “overzealous prosecutions,” and there were no prosecutions undertaken as “publicity stunts.”
According to Cyndee Todgham Cherniak (here), FCPA enforcement would likely resemble the sparse enforcement of Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.
At least that is my take-away from her recent post (here) on the Trade Lawyers Blog.
For more on Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (see here and here).
Will Julian Messent (Or Others) Be Prosecuted For FCPA Violations?
Earlier this week, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced (here) that Julian Messent was sentenced to 21 months in prison “after admitting making or authorizing corrupt payments of almost US $2 million to Costan Rican officials in the state insurance company, Instituto Nacional de Seguros (INS) and the national electricity provider Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.”
Messent, a former director of London-based insurance business PWS International Ltd. (PWS), was the head of the Property (Americas) Divison at PWS in which role “he was responsible for securing and maintaining contracts for reinsurance in the Central and South America regions.”
According to the SFO release, “Messent authorized 41 corrupt payments” “to be paid to Costa Rican officials, their wives and associated companies, as inducements or rewards for assisting in the appointment or retention of PWS as broker of the lucrative reinsurance policy for INS.”
The SFO release also indicates that Messent was ordered to pay £100,000 in compensation to the Republic of Costa Rica. (In the U.S., FCPA fines flow solely into the U.S. Treasury).
Messent was charged under the U.K.’s Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (see here).
According to this report in the Guardian, “the SFO decided not to prosecute PWS because the firm, which has been sold, had a substantial deficit in its pension fund.”
According to the Guardian, “the covert payments were routed through bank accounts in the names of the wives of the Costa Rican officials and through accounts in Panama and the US, and a travel agency in Florida.”
Under the 78dd-3 prong of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, persons other than an issuer or domestic concern (i.e. in this case foreign nationals) can be subject to the FCPA if the improper payments have a U.S. nexus.
Will FCPA prosecutions of Messent (and perhaps others) follow?
Breuer on the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative
As highlighted in this prior post, in November 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder called asset recovery from corrupt officials a “global imperative” and he announced a “redoubled commitment on behalf of the United States Department of Justice to recover” funds obtained by foreign officials through bribery.
In July 2010, Holder announced (here) the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative “aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended – and proper – use: for the people of our nations.” Holder announced that the DOJ is “assembling a team of prosecutors who will focus exclusively on this work and build upon efforts already underway to deter corruption, hold offenders accountable, and protect public resources.”
In a recent keynote address at the Money Laundering Enforcement Conference (here), Assistant Attoney General Lanny Breuer had this to say about the initaitive:
“This Initiative represents a concrete step toward fulfilling that commitment. The Kleptocracy Initiative will involve three key sections in the Criminal Division: the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, which will lead it, and the Office of International Affairs and the Fraud Section, which will provide critical support. Once fully implemented, this Initiative will allow the Department to recover assets on behalf of countries victimized by high-level corruption, building on the Justice Department’s already robust enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Through the Kleptocracy Initiative, the Department will ensure that corrupt leaders cannot seek safe haven in the United States for their stolen wealth. And, if we uncover such wealth, the Justice Department will forfeit and return this stolen money to its rightful owners – the people and governments from whom it was taken.”
In his speech, Breuer also discussed (in a non-FCPA context) how the DOJ wants “companies that uncover illegal conduct to come forward voluntarily.”
Proclamation 7750 News
In 2004, President Bush signed Proclamation 7750 “To Suspend Entry As Immigrants or Nonimmigrants of Persons Engaged In or Benefiting From Corruption” (see here).
Proclamation 7750 basically says the U.S. can suspend entry into the country “of certain persons who have committed, participated in, or are beneficiaries of corruption in the performance of public functions where that corruption has serious adverse effects on international activity” subject to an exception where denying such entry would be “contrary to the interests” of the U.S.
Last year, the New York Times (here) ran an article quoting a former State Department official as saying the State Department(which is responsible for enforcing the proclamation) “seem[s] to lack the backbone to use this prohibition.”
Earlier this month, David Johnson (Assistant Secretary, Bureau International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State) stated at the Third Committee of the 65th Session of the UN General Assembly (see here) as follows:
“The United States continues to broaden its efforts to deny entry into our own country of public officials who receive bribes as well as those who supply them. Corrupt officials are not welcome in the United States.”
Joe Palazzolo (Wall Street Journal – Corruption Currents) followed up with Johnson and noted in a recent article that the “State Department is stepping up its game” in seeking to enforce Proclamation 7750. As Palazzolo reports, it is not hard to “step up the game” when “for a long time, one part-official […] handled 7750 matters.”
Palazzolo reports that the State Department recently hired two new employees and is “processing paperwork for two additional hires, who will focus the majority of their time on 7750 issues.” The article quotes a State Department official as saying, “it is our hope and intention that the new hires will result in greater capacity.”
Son Fights to Keep New York Condo
This prior post discussed the DOJ’s civil forfeiture complaint filed in July against certain U.S. properties “that represent a portion of illegal bribes paid to the former president of Taiwan and his wife.”
Joe Palazzolo (Wall Street Journal – Corruption Currents) recently reported that “the son of former Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian has quietly hired legal counsel to prevent a Manhattan condominium, which prosecutors say was purchased with bribes, from falling into the hands of the government.”
According to Palazzolo, the son, Chen Chih-chung, has retained Jonathan Harris (see here) to defend against the forfeiture action and Harris is quoted as saying he will be filing a motion to dismiss “shortly.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
Statistics of Note
Fulbright & Jaworski’s Annual Litigation Trends Survey Report is always an interesting read and this year’s report (available for download here) is no exception.
The report compiles survey data from “senior corporate counsel on their experiences and opinions regarding various aspects of litigation and related matters.” “There were 403 participants in the Litigation Trends Survey of 2010, including 275 in the U.S. and 128 in the U.K. (a record high).” Approximately 50% of the survey participants were employed by a company with gross revenues of over $1 billion.
Some statistics that caught my eye.
“Companies that have engaged outside counsel to assist with a corruption or bribery investigation in the past 12 months (including, but not limited to, FCPA in the U.S. and equivalent in U.K.)”
12% U.S., 26% U.K.
Surprising on both fronts. The spike in the U.K. rate 26% in 2010 vs. 12% in 2009 is not surprising given the increased attention to bribery and corruption issues in the U.K. as the Bribery Act nears implementation.
According to the survey, “a quarter of manufacturers have conducted bribery/corruption investigations” and this sector “continues to lead other industries, as it has for the past two years.”
“Companies that have engaged in due diligence for bribery or corruption (including FCPA matters) relating to a merger, acquisition or other business transaction with a foreign country in the past 12 months.”
17% U.S., 28% U.K.
Again surprising on both fronts. FCPA-specific due diligence in M&A and other cross-border transactions is frequently preached by the enforcement agencies, but apparently companies are not getting the message, or if they are, they don’t view FCPA specific due diligence as a value added exercise.
This next statistic is also surprising, particulary given (what at least appears to be from media and other reports) high anxiety levels as to the upcoming U.K. Bribery Act. I like how Miller & Chevalier states it in its recent FCPA Autumn Review 2010 (see here) – the U.K. Bribery Act “about which so much is being said and written” an issue already the “subject of lively debate and ominous forebodings” and a topic “commanding considerable commentary and concern.”
“Do you foresee changes in the way your company operates due to the new U.K. Bribery Act?”
89% no – U.S.
65% no – U.K.
The following non-FCPA statistic was also interesting.
“A quarter of the companies that have conducted an internal investigation reported the matter to a regulatory agency, as a result of the investigation.” I suspect that if this topic was FCPA specific the percentage would have been higher than 25%.
*****
As to FCPA, Inc. issue generally, this recent article in The Lawyer by Matt Byrne caught me eye. It discusses Shearman & Sterling’s “radical strategy” to boost litigation related revenue. The article quotes N.Y. based partner Herb Washer as saying that, among other areas, FCPA-related matters are acting as a catalyst for Shearman’s litigation push. “FCPA enforcement has become an explicit priority of the Department of Justice,” says Washer. “There’s not only a greater number of cases but the fines are trending upwards. There’s very big money at risk and companies are spending big money to defend themselves against allegations. There’s no doubt this is a significant driver for the growth of our practice and many of our competitors.”
SciClone – An FCPA Feeding Frenzy
On August 9, 2010 SciClone Pharmaceuticals made an FCPA-related disclosure.
This post discusses what has happened since.
August 10th
Shares of SciClone plunged, at one point down 40% from the previous day’s close, closing down 31.9%. (This is clearly in stark contrast to the recent situation involving Schlumberger discussed in yesterday’s post – here).
Levi & Korsinsky LLP announce that it is investigating SciClone on behalf of shareholders for possible violations of state and federal securities laws.
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announce that it is investigation SciClone on behalf of shareholders for possible violations of federal securities laws.
The law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC announces the commencement of an investigation into SciClone to determine whether it has violated federal securities laws.
Roy Jacobs & Associates announce that it is investigating SciClone for potentially violating the federal securities laws.
August 11
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP announce that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of SciClone to determine whether it has violated federal securities laws.
The law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC announce that it is investigating SciClone for potential violations of state and federal law.
Goldfarb Branham, LLP announce that it is investigating SciClone for shareholders who purchased stock of the company and preparing a possible derivative lawsuit against company executives.
Finkelstein Thompson LLP announce that it is investigating potential shareholder claims concerning SciClone.
August 12
Robbins Umeda LLP announce that it commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of the law by certain officers and directors at SciClone.
August 13
The law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti announce that the firm has filed the first securities fraud class action lawsuit against SciClone in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company between May 11, 2009 and August 10, 2010.
August 19
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP announce that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SciClone.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SciClone.
August 20
Kendall Law Group announce an investigating of SciClone for shareholders.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of SciClone.
August 28
Roy Jacobs & Associates (again) announce that it is investigating SciClone for potentially violating the federal securities laws.
September 7
The Shuman Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired SciClone common stock between May 11, 2009and August 10, 2010.
September 8
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announce that it has filed a class action suit against SciClone alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of SciClone’s common stock during the period May 11, 2009 and August 9, 2010.
September 16
The law firm of Strauss & Troy announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SciClone for potential violations of state and federal law.
September 23
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announce that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SciClone.
Given the above, you are probably wondering, geez, what did SciClone disclose – how extensive were the disclosed FCPA violations? Did the company’s CEO or CFO resign? Is the company still in business?
Well, not exactly.
On August 9th, SciClone disclosed (see here) as follows:
“On August 5, 2010 SciClone was contacted by the SEC and advised that the SEC has initiated a formal, non-public investigation of SciClone. In connection with this investigation, the SEC issued a subpoena to SciClone requesting a variety of documents and other information. The subpoena requests documents relating to a range of matters including interactions with regulators and government-owned entities in China, activities relating to sales in China and documents relating to certain company financial and other disclosures. On August 6, 2010, the Company received a letter from the DOJ indicating that the DOJ was investigating Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues in the pharmaceutical industry generally, and had received information about the Company’s practices suggesting possible violations.”
During SciClone’s August 9th earnings conference call Friedhelm Blobel (President and CEO) stated that SciClone “intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and DOJ in the conduct of their investigations, and has appointed a special committee of independent directors to oversee the Company’s efforts.” Blobel noted that “as far as timing is concerned, the lawyers tell us that these investigations typically are long lasting.” In response to the question – is the investigation disrupting day-to-day operations or ongoing sales, Gary Titus (CFO) said that “it is business as usual for SciClone, and we continue to focus on all of the priorities that we have set for the Company …”
That’s right.
All of the above occured because the SEC initiated a formal investigation of SciClone and issued a subpoena to the company and because SciClone received a letter from the DOJ as to an industry-wide investigation suggesting possible improper conduct by the company.
You be the judge.
Are the above referenced investigations and lawsuits a rational and value added exercise for shareholders of SciClone or rather indicative of an FCPA feeding frenzy where everyone, it seems, is trying to get a slice of the pie?
Has this all gotten a bit out-of-hand?
*****
Yesterday, SciClone (see here) announced “continued topline growth and strong cash position in the Third Quarter of 2010.”
A Favor … Plus The Friday Roundup
A Favor
Each year, LexisNexis honors a select group of blogs that set the online standard for a given industry.
I am pleased to share that FCPA Professor is one of the nominated blogs for the LexisNexis Top 25 Business Law Blogs of 2010.
LexisNexis invites the business law community to comment on the list of nominees so that it can narrow the field to the Top 25.
The link to submit comments is here.
To submit a comment, you must register, but registration is free and does not result in sales contacts. The comment box is at the very bottom of the page and the comment period ends on October 8, 2010.
Many of the other blogs nominated are the work of multiple bloggers and/or for-profit entities. Thus, as a single blogger, I am honored to be included on this list. My mission remains the same since I launched FCPA Professor in July 2009. That is to inject a much needed scholarly voice into FCPA and related issues, to explore the more analytical “why” questions increasingly present in this current era of aggressive enforcement, and to foster a forum for critical analysis and discussion of the FCPA and related topics among FCPA practitioners, business and compliance professionals, scholars and students, and other interested persons.
I hope you value the content delivered to you each day on FCPA Professor and I thank you for your consideration.
Friday Roundup
HP speaks, checking in with the Africa Sting case, Smith & Wesson’s reduced international shipments, BAE news, The Bribery Centre, and the International Anti-Corruption Academy … it’s all here in the Friday roundup.
HP Speaks
In April (see here) it was reported that German and Russian authorities were investigating whether Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) executives paid millions of dollars in bribes to win a contract in Russia with the office of the prosecutor general of the Russian Federation. U.S. authorities then launched an investigation, something HP publicly acknowledged (see here). Yesterday, for the first time, HP “talked” about the investigation(s) in an SEC filing. In its 10-Q filing (see here) the company disclosed as follows:
“Russia GPO and Related Investigations
The German Public Prosecutor’s Office (“German PPO”) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that current and former employees of HP engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett−Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP, and the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The €35 million transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network. The German PPO has recently requested information on several non−public sector transactions entered into by HP and its subsidiaries on or around 2006 involving one or more persons also involved in the Russia GPO deal.
The U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC have also been conducting an investigation into the Russia GPO deal and potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Under the FCPA, a person or an entity could be subject to fines, civil penalties of up to $500,000 per violation and equitable remedies, including disgorgement and other injunctive relief. In addition, criminal penalties could range from the greater of $2 million per violation or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss from the violation. The U.S. enforcement authorities have recently requested information from HP relating to certain governmental and quasi−governmental transactions in Russia and in the Commonwealth of Independent States subregion dating back to 2000.
HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies.”
Africa Sting
It’s been a while since I posted on the Africa Sting case (see here for numerous prior posts). You’ll recall that the 20+ defendants were snared in an undercover operation in which FBI agents posed as a Gabon “foreign official.” Entrapment is sure to be a legal issue the defendants will formally raise – and indeed it has been an issue defense lawyers have already publicly stated. As noted in this Blog of Legal Times post, during a hearing earlier this week, defense counsel “are demanding access to internal Justice Department and FBI manuals that govern the planning and execution of undercover operations.” According to the post, defense counsel have already claimed violations of DOJ/FBI policy in connection with the sting operation.
Smith & Wesson’s Reduced Shipments
Speaking of the Africa Sting case, one of the company’s indirectly, at least at this point, implicated in the matter is Smith & Wesson, the employer of Amaro Goncalves – one of the indicted individuals. In July (see here), the company disclosed the existence of a DOJ/SEC investigation and yesterday’s 10-Q filing (see here) does not seem to add much from the previous filing. However, this sentence from pg. 26 of the filing caught my eye: “Pistol sales decreased 25.3%, driven by the reduction in consumer demand as well as reduced international shipments related to our investigation of the FCPA matter.”
BAE News
The BAE bribery, yet no bribery enforcement action (see here) may be over in the U.S. and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office – BAE plea agreement may be waiting judicial approval in the U.K. (see here), but that does not mean that BAE’s potential exposure in other jurisdictions is over. For instance, this recent Businessweek article suggests that South African authorities remain interested in corruption allegations concerning the purchase of fighter jets from BAE. In addition, according to this recent story in The Prague Post “the Czech Republic has asked the United States for help in its inquiry into alleged corruption in a 2002 deal to buy 24 fighter jets from … BAE Systems.” The DOJ’s non-FCPA criminal information against BAE (see here) included allegations regarding the sale of fighter jets to the Czech Republic.
The Bribery Centre
The U.S. is not the only country with a vibrant and aggressively marketed anti-bribery sector. With implementation of the U.K. Bribery Act expected in April 2011, an industry is developing on the other side of the Atlantic as well. The Bribery Centre (here) seeks to provide a “unique resource to manage compliance to the Bribery Act 2010.” Described as a “collaboration between Ten Alps plc and Venalitas Ltd” the Centre “aims to become the predominant online resource for those companies who need assistance to become compliant with this new landmark piece of legislation.” Contributors include Clifford Chance and KPMG. As noted near the top of the site, you only have “29 weeks to implement adequate procedures.”
International Anti-Corruption Academy
The IAAC as it is known (see here) recently had its coming out party. As described on its website, the IAAC is “a joint initiative by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Republic of Austria, the European Anti-Fraud Office, and other stakeholders” and it “is a pioneering institution that aims to overcome current shortcomings in knowledge and practice in the field of anti-corruption.”
Located near Vienna, Austria, the academy “will function as an independent centre of excellence in the field of anti-corruption education, training, networking and cooperation, as well as academic research.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
Conte To Steptoe & Johnson
The SEC announced yesterday (see here) that Christopher Conte, an Associate Director in the Division of Enforcement, plans to leave the SEC next month to rejoin his previous employer, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, as a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. As noted in the SEC’s release, during Conte’s tenure at the SEC he oversaw and conducted enforcement investigation involving, among other areas, illicit payments under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
In a release (see here), Roger Warin, Chairman of Steptoe’s Executive Committee, noted that Conte’s “depth and breadth of experience leading a wide range of SEC enforcement investigations, together with his understanding of the SEC’s approach to enforcement and the agency’s key priorities, will be a valuable contribution to a number of our practices and the clients they serve.” As noted in the release, Conte will join Steptoe’s “top-ranked” FCPA practice, which includes, among others, Lucinda Low (see here).
Conte joins several other former SEC FCPA enforcement attorneys who have left the agency for a private practice career focused on the FCPA. Other examples include Fredric Firestone (former Associate Director of Enforcement Division – see here) and Richard Grime (former Assistant Director of the Enforcement Division – see here, see here for a prior related post).
Several DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys have also recently left government service for a private practice career focused on the FCPA. See here, here, and here for prior posts.