Category: FCPA Jurisprudence

Judge Selna Concludes “The Question of Whether State-Owned Companies Qualify as Instrumentalities Under the FCPA is a Question of Fact”

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge James Selna denied the Carson “foreign official” challenge. See here for his written decision.

Judge Selna concluded that “the question of whether state-owned companies qualify as instrumentalties under the FCPA is a question of fact.”

Judge Selna stated that “several factors bear on the question of whether a business entity constitutes a government instrumentality” including the following.

• The foreign state’s characterization of the entity and its employees;

• The foreign state’s degree of control over the entity;

• The purpose of the entity’s activities;

• The entity’s obligations and privileges under the foreign state’s law,
including whether the entity exercises exclusive or controlling power to
administer its designated functions;

• The circumstances surrounding the entity’s creation; and

• The foreign state’s extent of ownership of the entity, including the level of
financial support by the state (e.g., subsidies, special tax treatment, and
loans).

[In April, Judge Howard Matz (C.D. of Cal.), in denying the Lindsey “foreign official” challenge (see here for the prior post) identified the following “non-exclusive list” of “various characteristics of government agencies and departments” that fall within the description of instrumentality:

• The entity is widely perceived and understood to be performing official (i.e., governmental) functions]

Judge Selna stated that his above-listed “factors are not exclusive, and no single factor is dispositive.” “As applicable here, their chief utility is simply to point out that several types of evidence are relevant when determining whether a state-owned company constitutes an ‘instrumentality’ under the FCPA – with state ownership being only one of several considerations. Accordingly, for these reasons and those discussed in more detail below, Defendants’ Motion is not entirely segregable from the evidence to be presented at trial, and therefore must be denied.”

Later in the opinion, Judge Selna stated as follows. “Admittedly, a mere monetary investment in a business entity by the government may not be sufficient to transform that entity into a governmental instrumentality. But when a monetary investment is combined with additional factors that objectively indicate the entity is being used as an instrument to carry out governmental objectives, that business would qualify as a governmental instrumentality.”

Judge Selna found that the “meaning of the statutory text is clear,” “that the meaning of instrumentality should be considered both within the context of the preceding terms of the FCPA [departments and agencies] and in view of the FCPA as a whole,” and that the “use of the term instrumentality in the FCPA produces no such crisp exclusion of a state-owned entity.” Judge Selna stated: “to the contrary, a state-owned entity – just like an agency or department – is a modality through which a government may conduct its business.”

Judge Selna then noted that “the fact that corporations have long been used in this country to carry out governmental objectives supports the conclusion that state-owned companies could be considered an instrumentality.” He stated that “given this country’s long history of using corporations to carry out governmental objectives, the Court rejects the idea that governmental and commercial actions are necessarily incompatible.”

Judge Selna also noted as follows. “The fact that Congress passed FSIA a year before the FCPA, and defined instrumentality to include state-owned companies, ultimately supports the Court’s conclusions that an instrumentality could include such entities under the FCPA.”

Judge Selna found “that the statutory language of the FCPA is clear, that the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent, and that resort to the legislative history of the FCPA is unnecessary.”

Under the heading “Conclusion for Statutory Construction,” Judge Selna stated as follows. “The Court concludes that some business entities may be considered an instrumentality but this is a fact-specific question that depends on the nature and characteristics of the business entity.” Elsewhere, Judge Selna similarly stated as follows. “state-owned companies may be considered instrumentalities under the FCPA, but whether such companies qualify as instrumentalities is a question of fact.”

*****

Earlier this week, Judge Selna issued an “Order Regarding Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date.”

Among other things, Judge Selna ordered that “the parties shall submit their proposed jury instructions and legal support for the “instrumentality” and scienter instructions on June 30, 2011. Objections to disputed instructions shall be filed no later than July 25, 2011.” “The hearing to address the “instrumentality” and scienter jury instructions, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Travel Act charges, and Defendants’ Grand Jury motions, shall be scheduled for August 12, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.”

“Foreign Official” – What Others Are Saying

What mattered most from the Lindsey matter was not so much the jury verdict (see here for the prior post), but Judge Matz’s pre-trial decision on the “foreign official” issue. This is from a jurisprudence standpoint because obviously the jury verdict very much mattered to the defendants, their friends and family, and other employees of Lindsey Manufacturing and I am not trying to diminish or make light of the very human element of the jury verdict.

While we await final rulings in the Carson and O’Shea “foreign official” challenges, let’s revisit Judge Matz’s April 20th ruling (see here for the previous post) and see what others are saying.

*****

In this client alert, King & Spalding stated as follows. “In his decision, Judge Matz provided a helpful but non-exclusive list of illustrative criteria for determining whether a state-owned entity is sufficiently similar to a government agency or department to consider it a government ‘instrumentality.’ […] Importantly, although in this case the court found that CFE may be an instrumentality of the Mexican government, the court’s opinion leaves ample room for argument in future cases that other state-owned corporations – such as those that do not share many characteristics with government departments and agencies, and those that are only
partially owned by a foreign government – may not fall within the FCPA’s reach.”

Luce Forward, in this eUpdate, stated as follows. “The Court, however, nimbly sidestepped Lindsey’s legislative history argument. It simply cited the Mexican government’s descriptions of the role of CFE in the government hierarchy and noted that in CFE’s own (English language) website it identified itself as a government agency (and by implication, therefore, a government instrumentality). The Court said its ruling was based on “simple statutory construction” and that its finding on the status of CFE was an issue of law, not of fact, and wouldn’t be subject to further evidence on that question during trial.”

This FCPA Update by Debevoise & Plimpton provides a lengthy summary of the recent “foreign official” challenges as well as an overview of Judge Matz’s ruling.

In this write-up, Fulbright & Jaworski stated as follows. “The Lindsey Manufacturing ruling is significant as it represents a victory for the DOJ that will, at least for the present time, likely strengthen and embolden the government’s efforts to bring enforcement actions against companies and individuals based on its expansive interpretation of the term “foreign official.” Additionally, while it is not certain to what degree the Lindsey Manufacturing ruling will affect the Carson and O’Shea courts’ decisions, it is probable that the decision will be weighed as both courts consider whether to narrow the current government view of who is a “foreign official” for purposes of FCPA enforcement under the respective facts of each of those cases. The next two decisions will be highly anticipated. Certainty regarding who will be considered a “foreign official” under the FCPA and, thus, who should be considered a potential recipient of an improper payment under the Act, is critical as companies determine how best to formulate an effective compliance program in the current FCPA enforcement environment.”

In this memorandum, Simpson & Thacher stated as follows. “The ruling is not a whole-hearted endorsement of DOJ’s broad interpretation of the FCPA’s definition of “foreign official.” The judge did not rule that employees of state-owned entities necessarily fall within the definition of “foreign official.” Rather, he merely left open the possibility that employees of state-owned entities – depending on the specific facts in play – will be “foreign officials.” Indeed, while the judge ultimately ruled that the CFE officers in question may be “foreign officials,” he did so only after a close analysis of factual circumstances that many practitioners might agree presented an easy case for this conclusion. For instance, unlike other types of state owned businesses, CFE provides a service that is constitutionally mandated as an exclusive state function; and CFE even describes itself as a government “agency” on its own website. It remains an open question as to whether employees of other state-owned enterprises that do not share these features – such as a state-owned steel company – would be found to fall within the definition of foreign official. Nonetheless, the judge provided some new guidance for FCPA practitioners seeking to determine whether an entity might be an instrumentality of a foreign government. In the end, the decision leaves ample room for litigants in other situations to dispute whether state-owned enterprises are covered by the FCPA.”

In this summary, WilmerHale stated as follows. “Notably, the Court’s ruling is a very narrow one. First, the Court clearly rejected the Defendants’ argument that no corporation could qualify as an “instrumentality.” Second, the Court left open the question of whether all corporations that perform some public function qualify as “instrumentalit[ies].” Finally, the Court’s ruling about CFE was based on unusual facts which were unique to the entity. These key aspects of the Court’s ruling appear to leave the door open to future challenges.”

In this summary, Haynes & Boone stated as follows. “The DOJ and the SEC have been aggressively pushing an expansive interpretation of “foreign official” for years. In the past, the Government’s targets have chosen to settle rather than press the issue and face a jury. That has kept the Government’s analysis from judicial scrutiny. Noriega is the first of several ongoing cases that bucks this trend, puts the Government to its proof, and tests its interpretation of the statute. The result should be a clearer understanding of who is a foreign official for FCPA purposes. The decision released last week is a strong affirmation of the Government’s more forward-leaning stance on the question. The decision’s five-factor test to determine whether a state-owned corporation is an instrumentality of the state offers clarity on a narrow but important question facing global companies doing business overseas. If the foreign company is created by statute, overseen by government officials or appointees, financed through taxes, exercises exclusive control over its designated functions, and is widely understood to be performing government functions, then that company is likely an instrumentality of a government and the FCPA applies. The potential game-changer in the opinion is the Court’s willingness to accept the Government’s contention that “foreign official” should be construed in light of the OECD Convention. The Convention definition of “public enterprise” includes “any enterprise” over which a government “may, directly or indirectly, exercise a dominant influence.” In certain jurisdictions where governments play a more active role in the economy, the Government may have many different ways to directly or indirectly exercise dominant influence. This could potentially expand the scope of covered foreign officials under the FCPA in many jurisdictions.”

One Win, One Loss

The conviction last week of Lindsey Manufacturing Inc. (see here for the prior post) was indeed the first instance of a company being tried and convicted on FCPA violations – as noted in the DOJ’s release (here).

However, contrary to numerous media reports, it was not the first instance of a company putting the DOJ to its burden of proof in an FCPA trial.

That first occurred in 1990-1991 when Harris Corporation (and certain of its executives) prevailed in an FCPA trial.

Thus, the DOJ’s record in corporate FCPA trials is one win, one loss.

This post summarizes the Harris Corporation enforcement action and includes information gleaned from original source newspaper accounts.

*****

In 1990, Harris Corporation (“Harris”), John D. Iacobucci, and Ronald L. Schultz were charged in a criminal indictment (here) filed in U.S. District Court – Northern District of California.

As alleged in the indictment, Harris was a Delaware publicly-traded corporation headquartered in Melbourne, Florida and through its Digital Telephone Systems (“DTS”) division it manufactured telephone switching systems. Iacobucci was the Vice President and General Manager of DTS and Schultz was, at various times, Director of Human Relations and Facilities at DTS, Director of Administration at DTS and responsible for Contracts Administration.

Robert O’Hara (an unindicted co-conspirator – more on O’Hara below) was the President and sole stock-holder of Polo Associations Corporation, Inc. – a Delaware corporation created by O’Hara “to engage in the business of advising telecommunications companies of ways to obtain business in Latin American countries, particularly Colombia.”

The conduct at issue involved “The Empress Nacional de Telecomunicaciones or Telecom” an alleged “instrumentality of the Government of Colombia responsible for the operation of telex services, maritime communications, and long distance and international telephone and telegraph services within the country of Colombia.” According to the indictment, “Telecom was an instrumentality of the Government of Colombia within the meaning of the FCPA.” However, as detailed below, none of the improper payments at issue were alleged to have been paid to Telecom officials.

The indictment charged that Harris, Iacobucci, Schultz and O’Hara conspired to violate the FCPA by paying and authorizing the payment of money to O’Hara “while knowing that a portion of such money” would be offered or given, directly or indirectly, to “foreign officials, that is, officials of the Government of Colombia” in order to influence the officials to award government telecommunications contracts to Harris in violation of the FCPA. The indictment further charged a conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions.

According to the indictment, part of the conspiracy was that Harris retained O’Hara “as a consultant based upon the representation of O’Hara that he had connections with officials of the Government of Colombia that he would use to assist” Harris in obtaining telecommunications contracts. According to the indictment, Harris agreed to pay O’Hara a 10% commission of the value of any telecommunications contracts entered into between Harris and Telecom.

The indictment does not allege that any payments went to officials of Telecom, but rather that payments went to a “member of the Camara de Representates (CDR), the national legislative of Colombia;” a local Colombian company “that was owned in part by a foreign official, that is, a member of the CDR;” and “various officials of the Government of Colombia.”

The indictment alleged specific meetings and documents that set into motion the bribery scheme.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the indictment also charged substantive FCPA anti-bribery and FCPA books and records offenses.

Original source newspaper reports from the time detail as follows.

Theodore S. Greenberg, deputy chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division, stated upon issuance of the indictment – “The department continues to view violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as serious matters and will pursue them accordingly.”

A statement from John Hartley, Chairman and Chief Executive of Harris, stated as follows. “We believe that these charges are based upon a distorted view of the facts, and they represent a radical departure from existing enforcement policies. We have cooperated fully with the Justice Department in its investigation of the allegations, providing clear evidence refuting the charges.”

At the time of the indictment, Harris Corp. was ranked 57th among Department of Defense contractors in terms of total dollar volume of contracts awarded.

Harris, Iacobucci, and Schultz put the DOJ to its burden of proof and the criminal trial began on March 4, 1991. The San Francisco Examiner stated that “the trial is significant because the Justice Department prosecutes only a few such foreign bribery cases a year.”

The same article contained the following background on the case. “The government’s case is based on the testimony of a whistle-blower who handed over company documents to the FBI and a consultant who has pleaded guilty to helping Harris Corp. falsify its records. […] The defendants insist that they authorized only legitimate consulting payments to secure Colombia’s business and claim that the government’s case rests on trumped-up charges by a disgruntled employee. […] At a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge rejected a request by defense attorneys to exclude dozens of Harris Corp. documents from the trial. They claim that [the whistleblower] stole the documents on behalf of the FBI. […] A key prosecution witness is Robert O’Hara, a consultant who is based in New York. He pleaded guilty in August to a charge of aiding Harris Corp. with falsifying its financial records.”

On March 19, 1991, Judge Legge, “after hearing the prosecution’s case … granted a verdict of acquittal … the defense was not called upon to present its case.” The San Francisco Chronicle stated as follows. “Shortly after the government rested its case, U.S. District Judge Charles Legge of San Francisco ruled from the bench that ‘no reasonable jury’ could convict the company nor its executives on any of the five bribery-related counts for which they were indicted. Citing insufficient evidence, Legge said the government had failed to show any intent by the defendants to enter into a criminal conspiracy. Legge also said it was the first time in his six years on the federal bench that he had dismissed a criminal case at mid-trial for lack of evidence.” The Chronicle called the dismissal a “stunning defeat for the Justice Department” after a 12-member jury heard two weeks of testimony by prosecution witnesses.

The Chronicle further stated as follows. “The acquittal also reinforced the Justice Department’s poor track record of prosecutions in overseas bribery cases. Federal prosecutors have won only two dozen convictions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 since the law was adopted more than a decade ago.”

Hartley (the above referenced Chairman and Chief Executive of Harris) stated as follows. “We’re very pleased that our Digital Telephone Systems Division and its employees have been vindicated, but we believe the charges should never have been brought in the first place. The Justice Department’s case was based upon a distorted view of the facts and represented a radical departure from existing enforcement policies. As a result, American taxpayers have been burdened with unnecessary litigation costs, and Harris has incurred more than $3 million in legal fees, spent many hundreds of hours of our people’s time, and suffered a substantial disruption of the corporation’s business to prove an absence of wrongdoing that should have been apparent from the beginning. The case has also placed a heavy strain on our two employees named in the indictment.”

Michael Fayad, a lawyer for Harris, stated as follows. “[Judge Legge] decided to dismiss the case for all of the same reasons we had pointed out to the Department of Justice early on, prior to indictment … that there was no bribe, no contract, no agreement to pay a bribe, no corrupt intent.”

Charles Bryer, Schultz’s lawyer, stated as follows. “The case was paper-thin, built on a con man’s story and a disgruntled employee’s vengeance. We were conned to pay some money that we thought was going to be used for a legitimate purpose.”

According to newspaper accounts, DOJ prosecutor Scott MacKay said the government brought the case in good faith – “We’re disappointed with the judge’s ruling. We feel that we presented a good case, but we accept the judge’s ruling.”

Today, Harris Corporation is alive and well. See here for its webpage.

As to O’Hara, as suggested above, he pleaded guilty to related charges in the Eastern District of N.Y. before the Harris et. al trial. However, after the California directed verdict of acquittal, but before his sentencing, O’Hara sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court judge denied his motion and concluded that the acquittal of O’Hara’s alleged co-conspirators was not a “fair and just reason” sufficient to allow O’Hara to withdraw his guilty plea. O’Hara appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed (See 960 F.2d 11).

*****

If non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements existed in 1990, would Harris have resolved the enforcement action via such a resolution vehicle? Likely yes. Yet Harris and the individual defendants all prevailed at trial.

Was there anything wrong with this prior era when NPAs and DPAs were not an option in an FCPA enforcement action? I submit no and believe that abolishing NPAs and DPAs in the FCPA context should be subject to serious debate and discussion. For more on this issue (see here).

Guilty Verdicts in Lindsey Case

This past October, I asked (here) what will happen to Lindsey Manufacturing Company?

The company (a privately held manufacturer of electrical transmission towers and related products that employs approximately 100 individuals) was indicted along with its President, Keith Lindsey, and its Chief Financial Officer, Steven Lee. [Others outside the company were charged as well in connection with the case].

The case represented a rare instance of a criminal indictment of a company in the FCPA context.

Yesterday, after a five week trial in federal court in the C.D. of California, a jury returned guilty verdicts.

As noted in this DOJ release, Lindsey Manufacturing, Lindsey and Lee were convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and five counts of FCPA violations. The conduct at issue focused on commission payments made by Lindsey Manufacturing to Enrique and Angela Aguilar (directors of Grupo Internacional de Asesores S.A.) that “would be used to pay bribes to Mexican officials in exchange for [Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), a state-owned utility company] awarding contracts to Lindsey Manufacturing.” As noted in the DOJ release, Angela Aguilar was convicted of one count of money laundering conspiracy and the court entered a judgment of acquittal prior to the jury’s verdict on one substantive count of money laundering against her. Enrique Aguilar is currently a fugitive.

Sentencing for Lindsey Manufacturing, Lindsey and Lee is scheduled for Sept. 16, 2011. Angela Aguilar’s sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 12, 2011.

Reacting to the guilty verdicts, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated as follows. ““Today’s guilty verdicts are an important milestone in our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement efforts. Lindsey Manufacturing is the first company to be tried and convicted on FCPA violations, but it will not be the last. Foreign corruption undermines the rule of law, stifling competition and the health of international markets and American businesses. As this prosecution shows, we are fiercely committed to bringing to justice all the players in these bribery schemes – the executives who conceive of the criminal plans, the people they use to pay the bribes, and the companies that knowingly allow these schemes to flourish. Bribery has real consequences.”

The Lindsey case attracted much interest as it was one of the “foreign official” challenges. See here for the full briefing and here for the written decision.

Prior to the jury verdicts, on Monday, Jan Handzlik (here – attorney for defendants Lindsey Manufacturing and Keith Lindsey) and Janet Levin (here – attorney for defendant Steve Lee) filed a motion to “Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice due to Repeated and Intentional Government Misconduct.” Handzlik is quoted in this story by Samuel Rubenfeld at the Wall Street Journal as saying “we continue to believe in our clients’ innocence and will pursue our motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.” A hearing on that motion is set for June 6. Aguilar’s attorney, Stephen Larson (here) reportedly intends to seek a motion of acquittal as to the one charge his client was found guilty of.

Another case concerning alleged payments to CFE is pending in the Southern District of Texas against John Joseph O’Shea. See here for more.

So the question remains – what will happen to Lindsey Manufacturing?

As a small privately held company, Lindsey Manufacturing was able to aggressively mount a legal defense that publicly traded companies are unwilling, or some would say are logistically unable, to mount. Whether one agrees with certain of the judge’s pre-trial rulings or not, or whether one finds arguments about prosecutorial misconduct persuasive or not, the fact is, the Lindsey case, unlike the majority of FCPA enforcement actions, was subject to an adversary proceeding in which someone other than the enforcement agencies weighed in on the issues – and that is a good thing!

Oral Argument in Carson “Foreign Official” Challenge

Jaime Guerrero (Foley & Lardner – here) provides a first-hand account of yesterday’s oral arguments in the Carson “foreign official” challenge.

See here for a prior post, including links to the briefs.

*****

On Monday afternoon, May 9, 2011, United States District Judge James V. Selna heard oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment on the “foreign official” issue in the Carson case in the Central District of California. In their moving papers, the defendants made three separate arguments in support of their motion to dismiss Counts One through Ten of the Indictment. Specifically, the defendants argued that: first, as a matter of statutory interpretation, employees of the state-owned companies identified in the indictment fall beyond the scope of the FCPA’s definition of “foreign official;” second, to the extent there is an ambiguity in the statute, the rule of lenity mandates that the motion be resolved in defendants’ favor; and third, to the extent the FCPA could be construed to proscribe payments made or promised to employees of state-owned companies, the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants.

During the hearing, counsel for the defendants focused the majority of their arguments on the FCPA’s purported lack of definition for “instrumentality” within the term “foreign official.” Defendants noted that Congress did not define “instrumentality” within the statute and that the government’s position created a definition that was unworkable and overbroad. Moreover, the defendants argued that it was impractical to wait for the trial to decide the factors that the jury would consider to determine whether the employees of state-owned companies were “foreign officials.” The defendants also argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2933 (2010), was the proper framework for deciding the FCPA “foreign official” challenge. Thereafter, the defendants argued that the FCPA statute was “vague as applied,” as there was no way for the individual defendants to have done anything more to determine if a state-owned entity was an “instrumentality.” The defendants argued that there was no rhyme or reason to the government’s determination of whether a state-owned entity was an “instrumentality,” and, as such, the statute was vague. Finally, the defendants argued that the rule of lenity mandated that the Court dismiss the indictment, as the statute was unconstitutionally ambiguous and that, if it was a tie between the government’s position and the defendants’ position, that the tie should go to the defendants.

The government responded first by noting that the defendants’ ignored the standards the Court had to apply when deciding a motion to dismiss the indictment, as the issues presented in the motion raised factual issues that had to be resolved by a jury. Citing Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932), the government argued that because there were factual issues outstanding related to whether the state-owned entities were “instrumentalities,” the Court could not grant the motion to dismiss. The government also argued that the statute was not void for vagueness, as the statute’s mens rea or scienter requirement served to defeat the defendants’ claim that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. In particular, however, the government noted that the statute did not require a specific intent, but instead the government need only prove that the defendants knew that what they were doing was wrong.

District Judge Selna permitted the parties to argue their respective positions, interjecting on few occasions. During the defendants’ arguments that the definition of “instrumentality” in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) could not be used as a reference point, or definition, for “instrumentality” in the FCPA statute, District Judge Selna asked whether the Court could infer whether Congress intended for the term “instrumentality” to have the same definition in the FCPA as the FSIA. District Judge Selna also inquired whether a finding that a state-owned entity was an “instrumentality” was self-evident, as the nature of the entity would be before the jury.

Ultimately, after hearing all arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss, District Judge Selna took the motion under submission and reserved a final ruling on the motion for a later date.