The Financial Reform Bill’s Whistleblower Provisions And The FCPA
Section 1504 (see here for the prior post) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is not the only provision of the “financial reform package” that may impact Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance and enforcement.
Sections 922-924 of the Act President Obama is expected to sign soon also has the potential to impact FCPA enforcement.
Why?
Because it creates new whistleblower provisions applicable to all securities laws violations and the FCPA is part of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
This post will cover three topics: an overview of the new whistleblower provisions; some thoughts on whether whistleblower provisions applicable to FCPA enforcement is wise policy; and some thoughts on whether the new whistleblower provisions will impact FCPA enforcement, and if so, to what extent.
Overview
Section 922 amends the Exchange Act by including a new section, 21F, titled “Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection.”
Pursuant to the new section:
* any whistleblower (meaning “any individual who provides, or 2 more more individuals acting jointly who provide, information relating to a violation of the securities laws” to the SEC)
* who voluntarily provides original information (meaning information that: (a) “is derived from the independent knowledge or analysis of a whistleblower;” (b) “is not known to the [SEC] from any other source, unless the whistleblower is the original source of the information;” and (c) “is not exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative hearing, in a governmental report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the whistleblower is a source of the information”)
* to the SEC that leads “to the successful enforcement” of a “covered judicial or administrative action” (meaning “any judicial or administrative action brought by the [SEC] under the securities laws that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000”)
* shall be entitled to an award equal to “not less than 10%” and “not more than 30%” “of what has been collected of the monetary sanctions imposed” in the underlying SEC enforcement action.
Monetary sanctions include “any monies, including penalties, disgorgement, and interest ordered to be paid” by the SEC.
In determining the amount of the award the whistleblower shall receive, the SEC “shall take into consideration: (i) the significance of the information provided by the whisteblower to the success [of the enforcement action]; (ii) the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower [or the whistleblower’s legal representative] [in the enforcement action]; (iii) “the programmatic interest of the [SEC] in deterring violations of the securities laws by making awards to whistleblowers who provide information that lead to the successful enforcement of such laws; and (iv) such additional relevant factors as the [SEC] may establish by rule or regulation.”
Pursuant to the new whistleblower provisions, a whistleblower may be represented by counsel.
The provisions allow a whistleblower to submit information to the SEC anonymously, however in such a case, the whistleblower “shall be represented by counsel” and the whistleblower’s identity must be disclosed to the SEC before an award is made to such a whistleblower.
Section 922 specifically authorizes a whisteblower to receive an award “regardless of whether any violation of a provision of the securities laws, or a rule or regulation thereunder” underlying the SEC enforcement action “occurred prior to the date of enactment” of the provisions.
As with many whistleblower provisions, Section 922 prohibits employers from directly or indirectly discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or in any other manner discriminating against a whistleblower.
Section 922 also authorizes the SEC to share whistleblower provided information with other U.S. government agencies, including the Attorney General, as well as foreign securities authorities and foreign law enforcement.
In addition to the “original information” limitation discussed above, Section 922 also precludes the following categories of persons from receiving whistleblower awards: (a) various government and law enforcement agency employees; (b) “any whistleblower who is convicted of a criminal violation related to the [enforcement action];” and (c) “any whistleblower who gains the information through the performance of an audit of financial statements required under the securities laws and for whom such submission would be contrary to the requirements of section 10A of the Exchange Act.”
Pursuant to Section 922, the SEC “shall have the authority to issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate” to implement the above-described provisions.
Wise Policy As Applied to FCPA Enforcement?
As indicated above, the new whistleblower provisions are applicable to all securities laws violations – not just the FCPA.
While the new provisions may or may not represent needed legislation as applied to non-FCPA securities law violations, I do not believe that the whistleblower provisions represent wise policy as applied to FCPA enforcement.
Why?
Quite simply the FCPA is enforced like no other securities law (at least that I am aware of).
Against the backdrop of little substantive FCPA case law, the FCPA is enforced based largely on government enforcement agency interpretations that have never been accepted by a court. For every FCPA enforcement action alleging conduct that all reasonable minds would agree violates the FCPA, there is seemingly three FCPA enforcement actions alleging conduct that many reasonable minds question whether the conduct even violates the FCPA. Yet, these latter FCPA enforcement actions, notwithstanding the dubious and untested legal theories they are based on, are routinely settled by companies via a resolution vehicle that does not require the company to admit or deny the SEC’s allegations. Quite simply, a settled SEC FCPA enforcement action does not necessarily represent the triumph of the SEC’s legal position over the company’s, but rather reflects a risk-based decision primarily grounded in issues other than facts and the law. It is simply easier and more cost-efficient for a company to settle an SEC FCPA enforcement (notwithstanding whatever dubious and untested legal theory it is based on) than to participate in long, protracted litigation with its principal government regulator. Ask any seasoned FCPA practitioner and, in a candid moment, they will tell you the same thing.
Against this backdrop, is it wise to award a whistleblower 10-30% of the fines, penalties and disgorgement the SEC recovers in an FCPA enforcement action? Is it wise to award a whistleblower in connection with an FCPA enforcement action when the contours of the FCPA largely remain undefined by the courts? It is wise to award a whistleblower when the company, for reasons other than law or fact, does not even mount a legal defense?
I submit that the answer to each of these questions is no.
Impact on FCPA Enforcement?
Much has been written about the whistleblower provisions and the impact on FCPA enforcement – beginning when the provisions were first included in Congressional financial reform bill drafts.
Among other law firms with an FCPA practice or FCPA practitioners writing about the subject, Morgan Lewis stated that the “new law is likely to greatly increase the number of FCPA matters under government investigation” (see here); Fried Frank predicted that the “new whistleblower program may end up playing a key role in identifying and prosecuting violations of the FCPA” (see here); and Richard Cassin on the FCPA Blog guessed that the “bounty program will result in more FCPA cases against corporations” (see here).
I am not so sure and my guess is that the new whistleblower provisions will have a negligible impact on FCPA enforcement.
My reasons?
For starters, the SEC has long had a similar whistleblower program for insider trading. The results? According to a Senate report accompanying the financial reform package, less than $160,000 paid out to five whistleblowers.
In addition, the new whistleblower provisions will only be triggered when a public company issuer is the subject of an FCPA enforcement action. No public company issuer, means no SEC jurisdiction, means no whistleblower awards. There are many more private companies subject to the FCPA than public company issuers and the new whistleblower provisions should not impact this prong of FCPA enforcement which is indeed large. For instance, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of companies indirectly implicated (at least at this point) in the Africa Sting case are all private companies.
Furthermore, and perhaps most important, most FCPA enforcement actions already result from voluntary disclosures. Is the universe of FCPA enforcement actions really going to expand when public company issuers are already largely voluntarily disclosing conduct to the SEC – presumably the same conduct that a whistleblower would disclose?
On this issue, one thing the new whistleblower provisions may do is pit the whistleblower vs. the company in a strange, yet competitive, high-stakes game of “who has the fastest car” to Washington to disclose the conduct. Simply put, if the whistleblower loses, the information he or she discloses will no longer be “original information” and thus no award. If the company loses, the disclosure will no longer be “voluntary” and the hoped for credit under the DOJ’s Principles of Prosecution of Business Organizations and the Sentencing Guidelines will disappear. Against this backdrop, it may be that more conduct will be disclosed that may not even violate the FCPA because the risks of having the “slower car” are to great to pass up. But then again (as detailed in this post) a company voluntarily disclosing conduct that may not even violate the FCPA seems to a norm these days.
If the new whistleblower provisions do indeed have an appreciable impact on FCPA enforcement, the following questions, among others, come to my mind.
Will a law firm with an established FCPA practice start representing whistleblowers on the theory that a contingent fee on a 10-30% cut of an FCPA settlement is more profitable than hourly fee investigations or compliance?
Will a go-to FCPA plaintiffs firm emerge? Which firm/lawyer will it be?
Will the new whistleblower provisions trigger more substantive FCPA case law? How many enforcement actions based on whistleblower information that a company paid for a bottle of wine and opera tickets for an employee of a Chinese state-owned enterprise (ignoring the fact that the company did the same thing for other customers) will it take before a company says – enough of this silliness – will someone please litigate the enforcement agencies “foreign official” interpretation?
Will a “sophisticated” whistleblower with knowledge of the enforcement agencies many dubious and untested legal interpretations use this “gray space” as a point of entry into a much larger potential award on the theory that the “sophisticated” whistleblower is well aware that the enforcement agencies will ask the “where else” question before agreeing to resolve an enforcement action even if the whistleblower is unaware of anything else besides the provided information (which may not even violate the statute) guessing that there is some books or records or internal control issue somewhere in the company that will crop up and raise the award level? (For more on this “where else” question see this prior post).
The new whistleblower provisions provide much to think about and raise the above (and no doubt numerous other) questions.
The best part of the new whistleblower provisions would seem to be that its impact on FCPA enforcement can be monitored and analyzed as Section 922 requires the SEC to submit annual reports to Congress on its whistleblower award program including “the type of cases in which awards were granted.” Section 922 also requires the SEC to “establish a separate office within the [SEC] to administer and enforce” the new whistleblower provisions and requires the SEC Inspector General to conduct a study of the whistleblower provisions.
A Look Back in Time
Literally, Time Magazine that is.
In connection with my work in progress on the FCPA’s legislative / early history, the below articles from Time’s searchable archives caught my eye. (See here).
*****
In November 1979, Time carried a piece (here) about the DOJ’s new program to offer advice on the FCPA – what has come to be called the FCPA Opinion Procedure Release. The article contains this quote from Stanley Sporkin, the SEC’s then Enforcement Chief: “We do not have guidelines for rapists, muggers and embezzlers, and I do not think we need guidelines for corporations who want to bribe foreign officials.” Fast forward 30-some years and Sporkin is still on the FCPA scene. It was recently reported (here) that Sporkin is assisting former FBI Director Louis Freeh as the monitor in the Daimler enforcement action. Among the monitor’s duties is “review[ing] and evaluat[ing] the effectiveness of Daimler’s internal controls, record-keeping, and existing or new financial reporting policies and procedures as they relate to Daimler’s compliance with the books and records, interal accounting controls and anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, and other applicable anti-corrption laws.” (See here Appendix D).
*****
Almost as soon as the FCPA was passed, concerns were raised that the law was harmful to U.S. business. There was much activity on this issue in the early 1980’s as evidenced in this article from October 1980, this article from March 1981, this article from March 1981 as well, and this article from June 1981.
These articles detail, among other things: (i) that the Carter administration (Carter signed the FCPA into law in December 1977) “sent a hefty 250-page report to Congress on the various ways the U.S. discourages exporters” – one example – “the provisions of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which have never been clearly spelled out by the Justice Department.” (ii) that the GAO released a report in 1981 (see here for a prior post) detailing how the FCPA “is riddled with complicating ambiguities and shortcomings” including the key “foreign official” element; and (iii) that President Reagan’s “transition team on the workings of the Securities and Exchange Commission […] has recommended decriminalization of bribery.”
At to this last point, Time notes:
“Such a stance by the Administration toward foreign bribery would itself cause problems. By failing to enforce the act as written, the Administration not only would leave the legislation’s ambiguities unresolved, but would show a disrespect for the law, which is itself corrupting. Since the U.S. has adopted a moral position with regard to foreign bribery, neither the Administration nor Congress can now afford to let the subject wither away without compromising its principles in the process.”
*****
In response to Forbes recent FCPA article (see here), the Wall Street Journal Law Blog asked (see here) “is the FCPA just a full employment act for the private bar.” Such a question as it relates to the FCPA is not new. This March 1981 Time piece notes that the FCPA was “dubbed by one Wall Street wag” as the “Accountants’ Full Employment Act of 1977.”
Darden to Patton Boggs
Last month, it was Mark Mendelsohn who left his DOJ FCPA prosecutor job for a lucrative FCPA private practice career (see here and here).
This month, it is John “Jay” Darden, the lead DOJ prosecutor in the recent Daimler enforcement action (see here). Earlier this week, Darden (here) began at Patton Boggs (see here).
While at DOJ, Darden was an active speaker on the FCPA circuit (see here and here and here).
As noted in Patton Boggs’ press release (titled “Patton Boggs Snares Senior Justice Fraud Prosecutor”), Darden, who has government health-care fraud experience as well, will play a “key role” in the firm’s FCPA practice.
In the release, the managing partner of Patton Boggs states that Darden’s “keen strategic insight and deep knowledge of how the Justice Department approaches investigations in different areas of the criminal law will help a diverse range of clients overcome allegations of wrongdoing” and that the firm is “delighted to have such a talented and experienced prosecutor join our ranks.” Darden noted that he “look[s] forward to using my expertise to assist clients with their compliance needs and to defend them against criminal allegations.”
A few weeks ago, Nathan Vardi’s Forbes article (see here) generated much coverage (see here, here, here and here).
If you found Vardi’s points about a revolving door (and all the questions that may arise from this) valid and legitimate, you have another recent example to cite.
If you found Vardi’s article a “low blow,” “unbalanced and “unhinged,” you may be asking, what’s the big deal, DOJ prosecutors leave the agency all the time for private practice careers … that’s just how Washington works.
Q & A With Martin Weinstein
Martin Weinstein (here) is a “dean” of the FCPA bar. Much of my early understanding of the FCPA came as a direct result of working with Martin on FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. I also have Martin to thank for several of the stamps in my passport.
Below is a Q & A exchange with Martin in which he talks about the FCPA’s early years, the current state of enforcement, and suggestions for change.
*****
Q: As a 1984 law school graduate did you have any exposure to the FCPA? Describe your first exposure to the FCPA?
A: When I was in law school, I never heard of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and didn’t even know that it existed until around 1991. I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a witness I was interviewing mentioned to me that she thought that some payments had been made to an Egyptian government official. I remember turning to the investigating agent who was with me and saying, “isn’t there a statute somewhere that prohibits this?” That was my first exposure to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Q: You were lead DOJ counsel in the Lockheed case in the mid-1990’s. Generally describe this matter, how it was resolved, and whether resolution of this case, if brought in 2010, would look any different?
A: I was the lead counsel in the Lockheed case that was resolved in the mid-1990’s, specifically January 1995. It was, by all accounts, the first really serious corporate case brought in the then 20 year history of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In that case, the company actually was indicted, and the allegations involved payments to a member of the Egyptian Parliament to obtain a contract through which the Egyptian Air Force would buy three C130 aircraft from Lockheed. There were two individuals also charged. The cases against all three defendants (the company and the two individuals) were resolved before trial, in the company’s case, literally days before the jury was to be selected.
The company agreed to plead guilty to a conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It agreed to pay a combination of civil and criminal damages in the amount of $24.8 million, which was twice the profit of the contract they had with the Egyptian military to sell the C130 aircraft.
One of the individuals pled guilty to a lesser charge, and the other individual, a marketing manager named Suleiman Nassar, actually fled to Syria. That was one of the most interesting parts of the case for me because I visited Damascus on several occasions and negotiated directly with the government. Nassar was imprisoned in Syria on these charges, but was ultimately released and returned to the U.S. to plead guilty to violating the FCPA and became, I believe, the first person to go to jail under the FCPA.
Q: Did FCPA enforcement, during the last decade, morph into something other than what Congress intended the FCPA to address when passed in 1977?
A: The last decade of FCPA enforcement has seen extraordinary evolution, and I think you have to say that when Congress passed the law in 1977, they did not envision the wide reach of enforcement today and the types of things that the government gets involved in, such as transactions, joint ventures, and successor liability. I do think that the DOJ and the SEC have stayed generally true to the vision of the FCPA, which focuses on things of value, primarily money, going to foreign government officials in exchange for business.
Q: What is your biggest challenge as an FCPA practitioner? How has your FCPA practice changed over the past decade?
A: The challenges as an FCPA practitioner have mainly involved keeping up with the pace of the enforcement agencies in recent years. Whereas cases used to involve U.S. companies and their businesses in a few countries, the typical case now involves enforcement actions by multiple sovereigns involving the same company at the same time, and that makes the practice more challenging and more fascinating.
Q: What are your clients’ biggest challenges / frustrations with the FCPA or FCPA enforcement? Have these challenges / frustrations changed over the past decade?
A: I think that companies’ main frustration is that even with an outstanding compliance program and 99% of the employees maintaining strict adherence to the laws, you can still have violations which expose the entire company to extraordinarily serious penalties. I think the government has, at times, lost track of the main motivations for this statute and has become focused on the amounts of penalties, the imposition of compliance monitors, and exercising government control over what are basically private businesses. The vast majority of companies are absolutely committed to following the spirit and the letter of the FCPA, but when a company gets into trouble, the whole enterprise can be put at risk because of the conduct of a few people, and that doesn’t seem right. I worry that the government has come to see private industry through “dirty” glasses: the punishments don’t seem to fit the crimes.
Q: The FCPA was passed in 1977, amended in 1988 and also amended in 1998. Given this approximate ten year cycle, is the FCPA in need of further amendment? If so, what would the “Weinstein” amendment look like?
A: I think the Weinstein amendment would focus on the very significant issue of who is a foreign official and what constitutes a state-controlled instrumentality. There is so little guidance in this area that an amendment to the law providing clarity to companies wishing to comply is really essential. For example, after the U.K. government takeovers of certain British banks and U.S. intervention in the auto industry, did all these private businesses become state-controlled instrumentalities rendering all their employees government officials? Companies should not have to guess who is and who is not a government official.
Q: Arguably the two most egregious bribery schemes in recent years involved Siemens and BAE. In both instances, the companies were not charged with FCPA antibribery violations. What message does this send?
A: Siemens and BAE were not charged with antibribery violations largely for two different reasons. In the Siemens case and a number of other cases, charging a company with antibribery violations renders it susceptible to significant suspension and debarment risks. If the government can find suitable alternatives to antibribery charges and still tell the full story of the conduct to the public, it is really a much more just solution not to expose the company to extreme suspension and debarment risks. In BAE, I think the issue was much more one of jurisdiction, and I think the government is going to find this issue repeatedly if it continues to seek to prosecute foreign companies that have relatively little contact with U.S. interstate commerce.
Q: How can law and business schools best expose future lawyers and business leaders to the FCPA? What advice do you have for law students interesting in a future FCPA practice?
A: The FCPA has been a fantastic area in which to practice and to watch evolve. For students who are interested in the field, I think the most important thing is to learn as much as you can about U.S. criminal law and U.S. securities law and their interplay with various anticorruption laws around the world. It has become a very complicated field and I think it is safe to say the stakes for companies and individuals have never been higher.
Potpourri
Some items of interest to pass along.
The Business Case for Fighting Bribery and Corruption
Principles for Responsible Investment, a coalition of investor groups that collectively manage over $1.7 trillion in assets, recently wrote to “21 major companies in 14 countries asking them to improve their disclosure of bribery and corruption risks and avoidance measures.” For more information see here.
Upcoming Events
Hungry for more information on the FCPA and related topics? Mark your calendar for these upcoming events.
“Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Overview 2010: Enforcement and Compliance Strategies” – May 18th – Winston & Strawn (see here).
“The Role of HR in FCPA Compliance and Ethics” – May 18th – Thomas Fox (see here).
“The Implications of the UK Bribery Bill: Preparing for a New Era of Enforcement” – May 18th – Steptoe & Johnson (see here).
“A Focus on FCPA Investigations” – May 25th – Morgan Lewis (see here).
“Corruption: The New Global Landscape” – June 10th, June 25th – Venable and Field Fisher Waterhouse (see here).
“The Bribery Racket” – Additional Commentary
A previous post (see here) covers Nathan Vardi’s “The Bribery Racket” piece in the current issue of Forbes. For additional commentary see here from Mary Jacoby at Main Justice.
SEC Seeking “Corporate Intelligence Specialist”
Have what it takes to join the SEC’s new FCPA unit? See here to find out.