FCPA Issues Can Reduce The Value Of A Merger
Getting transactional lawyers to take the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act seriously can sometimes be an uphill battle.
The recent and ongoing FCPA scrutiny of ABM Industries Inc. should help sell the story.
As noted in this prior post, in December 2011 ABM disclosed in its annual report as follows. “During October 2011, the Company began an internal investigation into matters relating to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Company’s internal policies in connection with services provided by a foreign entity affiliated with a Linc joint venture partner. Such services commenced prior to the Company’s acquisition of Linc. As a result of the investigation, the Company has caused Linc to terminate its association with the arrangement. In December 2011, the Company contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to voluntarily disclose the results of its internal investigation to date. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, the Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.”
As suggested by the above disclosure, ABM’s FCPA scrutiny does not involve anything it did, rather it is based on a foreign entity affiliated with a joint venture partner of a company (The Linc Group LLC) ABM merged with December 2010. As noted in this ABM release, ABM acquired The Linc Group, LLC (“TLG”) for $300 million in cash.
The merger agreement (here) contains a typical target company representation and warranty as follows.
Perhaps FCPA specific due diligence was conducted by ABM prior to closing and the due diligence did not detect the potential FCPA issue or perhaps FCPA specific due diligence was not conducted.
Regardless of the answer, ABM’s FCPA scrutiny, based entirely on the pre-merger conduct of The Linc Group or its affiliates, is reducing the value of the merger.
In its recent quarterly filing (here), ABM disclosed, for the six months ending April 30, 2012, $2.7 million of legal fees and other costs associated with the internal investigation. Given that ABM’s investigation would appear to be in its infancy, and factoring in potential exposure through an actual enforcement action, it is not hard to imagine that 5% of the merger price could evaporate due to the FCPA issue. And then of course, there is potential post-enforcement action costs.
For instance, in 2010 Alliance One International resolved an FCPA enforcement action by agreeing to pay $19.5 million in combined DOJ and SEC fines and penalties. The entire enforcement action was based on the pre-merger conduct of acquired entities. (See here for the prior post). Pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement, Alliance One was required to engage a compliance monitor for three years. In FY 11, the company disclosed $3.4 million in monitor costs. Earlier this week, in an annual report, the company disclosed an additional $6.1 million in monitor costs.
In short, the FCPA matters, including for transactional attorneys, in the context of M&A.
For previous posts discussing similar merger issues, see here and here.
For Your Listening Enjoyment
On June 5th, the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education in cooperation with Dorsey & Whitney & LLP and Pepper Hamilton LLP sponsored a program titled “The New Era of FCPA Enforcement and the Collapse of the Africa Sting Cases: Time to Reevaluate?”
I was pleased to participate along with John Buretta (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice); Charles Cain (Deputy Chief, FCPA Unit, Securities and Exchange Commission); France Chain (Senior Legal Analyst, Anti-Corruption Division, OECD); Stanley Sporkin; and Eric Bruce (Partner, Kobre & Kim LLP). The program was moderated by Thomas Gorman (Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP) and Frank Razzano (Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP).
An audio version of the 90 minute program can be downloaded here. Below is a breakdown of topics discussed along with the approximate minute mark(s) of the discussion.
4 – 11 minutes – Eric Bruce (defense counsel in the Africa Sting case) provides an inside view of the case.
11 – 13 minutes – discussion of 78dd-3 jurisdictional issues, including in the Africa Sting case
13 – 19 minutes – discussion of various issues including corporate FCPA resolutions, whether the DOJ is more of a regulator than prosecutor in FCPA cases, and the DOJ’s view of the Africa Sting cases including whether it learned anything from the cases
19 – 24 minutes – Stanley Sporkin weighs in as to the origins of the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions, says that the DOJ was hunting in the wrong place in the Africa Sting cases and says that FCPA enforcement needs to get back to the basics of “blocking and tackling”
25 – 30 minutes – discussion of the “foreign official” issue in which the DOJ says that “no one really conveys that they are confused” about what “foreign official” means
30 – 38 minutes – discussion of facilitation payments and whether the enforcement agencies have ignored this statutory exemption
38 – 41 minutes – I raise the question of whether the FCPA has morphed into an all-purpose corporate ethics or governance statute and discussion regarding what is the best way to expand the FCPA – through charging decisions or through Congressional action
42 – 50 minutes – discussion of compliance issues and how best to reward corporate compliance as well as the recent Garth Peterson / Morgan Stanley case in which I pose to the DOJ and the SEC the question of whether the outcome would have been any different if the FCPA had a formal compliance defense
50 – 55 minutes – discussion of miscellaneous issues including transparency in enforcement, cooperation issues and self-reporting
55 – 67 minutes – further discussion of compliance issues, including whether a compliance defense would be a “race to the bottom” or a “race to the top,” whether there is a Washington D.C. beltway view on FCPA compliance, and whether the increase in FCPA enforcement is doing anything to properly incentivize business conduct
67 – 71 minutes – discussion of whether there is any practical difference in the corporate liability standards in the U.K. Bribery Act and the FCPA
72 – 76 minutes – further discussion of the Africa Sting cases
77 – 79, 83 – 86 minutes – DOJ responds to a question regarding FCPA guidance, including timing and specifics
80 – 83 minutes – discussion as to whether it is acceptable not to self-report if the company otherwise implements a variety of internal remedial measures
87 – 89 – once again the issue of whether the DOJ has learned anything from the Africa Sting cases
*****
If you are aware of other FCPA video or audio programs and would like to provide a similar annotation as to issues, please consider this an open invitation to do a guest post as many could benefit.
Friday Roundup
Efforts to influence the upcoming guidance, a stiff FCPA-related sentence, Representatives Cummings and Waxman think they are on to something, and thumbs up – it’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Guidance
Earlier this week, Global Financial Integrity, Open Society Foundations, and others released this letter to the DOJ and SEC concerning upcoming FCPA guidance. The letter addresses “foreign official,” a compliance defense, voluntary disclosure, declination decisions, parent-subsidiary liability, successor liability, de minimis gifts and hospitality, and mens rea and corporate criminal liability.
As to “foreign official” the letter states “that ownership of companies around the world, including in the U.S., is impossible to determine independently” and that “the staff of a U.S. company is not likely to be able to independently verify the direct and indirect ownership of foreign companies.” The letter also states, as to control of an instrumentality by a foreign government, that control can be conferred, among other ways, by “unspoken custom.”
Should one laugh or cry when reading such statements concerning a key element of the most important U.S. law governing international business transactions? Perhaps the groups don’t care. After all, as noted here, some of the groups have previously stated as follows regarding “foreign official” – “The U.S. Chamber is promoting the creation of a definition of “foreign official” so that companies have greater legal certainty. Greater certainty of what? Greater certainty of who they are permitted to bribe and who they are not permitted to bribe. […] In short, defining the term “foreign official” would underscore the idea that it is OK to bribe certain people and not others, a principle the United States surely does not want to promulgate.”
Duperval Sentenced
Earlier this week, the DOJ announced (here) that “Jean Rene Duperval, a former director of international relations for Telecommunications D’Haiti S.A.M. (Haiti Teleco), a Haitian state-owned telecommunications company, was sentenced [by U.S. District Court Judge Jose Martinez in the Southern District of Florida] to nine years in prison for his role in a scheme to launder bribes paid to him by two Miami-based telecommunications companies.” The stiff sentence continues the trend of the Southern District of Florida (and Judge Martinez in particular) handing out the toughest FCPA or FCPA-related sentences in the country.
As noted in the release, Duperval was convicted in March 2012 of two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 19 counts of money laundering. According to the release, “Judge Martinez also ordered Duperval to forfeit $497,331.” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer stated as follows. “Mr. Duperval took bribes in exchange for giving companies an unfair and illegal advantage in the marketplace, and then tried to hide these illicit transactions behind the cloak of shell corporations and fake invoices. Just as we prosecute corrupt businesspeople under the FCPA, we will hold accountable corrupt foreign officials when they seek to launder the proceeds of that bribery through the U.S. financial system. Today’s nine-year prison sentence sends a strong message to foreign officials and others who would facilitate foreign corruption that they will face serious consequences.”
As noted in this prior post, the Haiti Teleco case (minus the manufactured and now former Africa Sting case) is the largest in FCPA history in terms of defendants charged – 13. The prior post provides a summary of all the enforcement actions.
The Latest FCPA Reform Volley
If your third cousin received a speeding ticket years ago does this prohibit you from forever seeking reform of speed limit laws? Probably not the best analogy, but Representatives Elijah Cummings and Henry Waxman seem to think so. As noted in this previous post, Cummings (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Waxman (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) sent letters to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stating as follows. “We are concerned about the role that Wal-Mart officials may have played in the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (“ILR”). It would appear to be a conflict of interest for Wal-Mart officials to advise on ways to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act at a time when the leadership of the company was apparently aware of corporate conduct that may have violated the law.”
Earlier this week, Representatives Cummings and Waxman again put pen to paper and sent this letter to the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stating as follows. “A new analysis by our staff reveals that Wal-Mart is not the only company represented on the ILR’s board that has faced allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Our review of ILR’s tax filings from 2007 to 20 10, member companies’ filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other documents reveals that 14 out of 55 ILR board members-almost one in four- were affiliated with companies that were reportedly under investigation for violations or had settled allegations that they violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” See here for more.
Closing with the analogy, perhaps Representatives Cummings and Waxman should instead inquire about how the speeding laws are being enforced – or at the very least – read this prior post titled “The Sun Rose, A Dog Barked, And A Company Disclosed FCPA Scrutiny.”
Thumbs Up
To Howard Sklar for this recent post on his Open Air Blog. I agree with the general thrust of Howard’s argument. So did Congress when it passed the FCPA. For that reason, and here is where I disagree with Howard, the issues he identifies are legal issues, not merely policy issues.
*****
A good weekend to all.
The Donald Goes Off And Conflates The Issues
Business mogul Donald Trump (who in recent years flirted with a Presidential run) recently went off on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on CNBC’s Squawk Box program. (See here for the video – the FCPA portion begins at approximately minute 14). Joining Trump in the discussion was Tom Stemberg of Highland Capital Partners. You will hear during the program views that FCPA enforcement has become “absolutely crazy,” and that the FCPA is a “horrible law.”
As with most post-News Corp. and post-Wal-Mart commentary, Trump conflates two issues: (1) the FCPA as passed by Congress and (2) the FCPA as enforced by the DOJ and SEC. Many of the concerns Trump and Stemberg raise were addressed by Congress when Congress elected not to capture payments to “foreign officials” in connection with ministerial or clerical acts. For more on this issue, see this previous post “Understanding Wal-Mart.”
You will also hear during the Squawk Box program a suggestion that instead of prohibiting improper payments, the FCPA should merely require disclosure of such payments. I do not agree with the suggestion, but it is not an outlandish suggestion. Indeed, as discussed in several prior posts (see here for instance) in the mid-1970’s Congress considered two main competing legislative proposals to deal with the so-called foreign corporate payments problem: prohibition vs. disclosure.
The disclosure regime was favored by the administration of Gerald Ford. President Ford’s point person on the issue was Elliot Richardson (Secretary of Commerce) who, in a letter to Senator William Proxmire (a Congressional leader on the issue), summarized the work of the Ford Task Force as follows. “The Task Force has concluded that the criminalization approach would represent little more than a policy assertion, for the enforcement of such a law would be very difficult if not impossible. […] The criminal approach would represent poor public policy. […] At the same time, the Task Force perceived several very positive attributes of systematic disclosure.” President Ford stated as follows. “The reporting requirement covers a broad range of payments relative to government transactions as well as political contributions and payments made directly to foreign public officials. By requiring reporting of all significant payments, whether proper or improper, made in connection with business with foreign government, the legislation will avoid the difficult problems of definition and proof that arise in the context of enforcement of legislation that seeks to deal specifically with bribery and extortion abroad.”
The disclosure regime was rejected by Congressional leaders. A Senate Report stated as follows. “The Committee concluded that an outright prohibition would be at least as feasible to enforce as any meaningful disclosure requirement. […] Clearly, in order to enforce such a disclosure requirement and apply sanctions for failure to file reports, it would be necessary to prove that the undisclosed payment was actually made, and that it was made with an improper purpose. Thus, the same evidence necessary to prove a violation of a direct prohibition would have to be marshalled in order to enforce a disclosure statute. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that a disclosure approach has at least the same enforcement problems inherent in the direct prohibition approach and none of its advantages.”
Jimmy Carter (who favored a prohibition regime over a disclosure regime) defeated Ford in the 1976 election and the rest is history.
Wal-Mart And FCPA Reform
A hot topic of late is what impact Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny will have on FCPA reform efforts.
Last week, in an editorial (here) USA TODAY stated as follows. “Supporters of weakening the act argue that the Justice Department has become too powerful and arbitrary. Some Chamber proposals, such as clearer enforcement guidelines, are relatively non-controversial. But others would seriously undermine the law. The most troublesome would give companies an automatic defense merely for implementing internal compliance programs to prevent and police bribery. The proposal would amount to giving companies a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s not hard to imagine corporations drawing up a set of cookie-cutter guidelines designed to meet the letter of the law, which might or might not reflect their commitment to thwarting corruption.”
[Dear USA TODAY Editorial Board, as noted in my article “Revisiting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Defense” (here) an FCPA compliance defense would not eliminate corporate criminal liability under the FCPA or reward “fig leaf” or “purely paper” compliance programs. A compliance defense would not apply to corrupt business organizations, activity engaged in or condoned by executive officers, or activity by any employee if it occurred in the absence of preexisting compliance policies and procedures. A growing chorus of former Department of Justice officials, including those who used to enforce the FCPA, support an FCPA compliance defense and a compliance defense will better incentivize more robust corporate compliance, reduce improper conduct, and thus best advance the FCPA’s objective of reducing bribery. As noted in this prior post, that’s not weakening the FCPA, that is strengthening the FCPA and best advancing its objective of reducing bribery.]
In an opposing view (here) also published by USA TODAY, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey (who represents the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform with regard to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) stated as follows. “Some suggest that increased FCPA enforcement has proved the law’s utility without the need for changes. But the opposite is true: Aggressive enforcement has alerted business and the courts alike to its flaws. That is why clarifying the FCPA has drawn bipartisan support.”
[I agree that high-profile instances of FCPA scrutiny such as News Corp.’s and Wal-Mart’s has shined a much needed light on FCPA enforcement and caused those who do not ponder FCPA issues every day to take notice. See here and here for prior posts. And indeed, Mukasey is right, as noted in this previous post, certain aspects of FCPA reform share bipartisan support.]
This Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents post by Samuel Rubenfeld titled “Wal-Mart Bribery Allegations Stir Up FCPA Debate Anew” contains the views of many including a statement I liked from Ian Koski, a spokesman for Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del. who has been open to amending the FCPA) that the Wal-Mart investigation is ongoing and that the senator wouldn’t decide legislative policy based on a news story.
In this post Tom Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) said that Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny “will sound the death knell for any efforts to amend” the FCPA. Fox also penned a guest post on the FCPA Blog (here) titled “How Wal-Mart Killed The Compliance Defense.” Also on the FCPA Blog, (here) Professor Andy Spalding penned a post titled “The Good Faith Compliance Defense, Unscathed.” Professor Peter Henning, writing on the New York Times DealBook page (here), stated as follows. “The investigation of Wal-Mart has brought the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to the attention of the public in a way not seen since the 1970s scandals that led to its adoption. Congress may find it politically impossible to adopt changes to the statute that would arguably make it more difficult to pursue cases as long as the allegations of foreign bribery by a leading American company remain in the headlines.” Likewise, Michael Volkov (Corruption, Crime and Compliance Blog) stated (here) that “Congress is not going to amend the FCPA anytime soon, and especially not in an election year” and yesterday he stated (here) that “FCPA reform is dead — not just for this year but for years to come.”
What to make of all this?
For starters, let’s observe what I submit are facts. The reason Wal-Mart has dominated the news cycle the past few weeks is not because the company is under FCPA scrutiny, this was known in December 2011 when Wal-Mart disclosed its FCPA scrutiny, becoming one of approximately 100 companies known to be under FCPA investigation. Rather, the reason Wal-Mart has dominated the news is because of how the company acted, or failed to act, since learning of potential FCPA issues in approximately 2005. This is a corporate governance issue, not an FCPA issue, and thus should not impact limited and sensible FCPA reform.
However, many people, including politicians who are ultimately responsible for reform, are unlikely to make this critical distinction and thus the recent news regarding Wal-Mart could impact FCPA reform.
Exhibit A and B in the politicization of FCPA reform are nearly identical letters here and here from Elijah Cummings (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Henry Waxman (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The letters state as follows. “We are concerned about the role that Wal-Mart officials may have played in the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform. It would appear to be a conflict of interest for Wal-Mart officials to advise on ways to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act at a time when the leadership of the company was apparently aware of corporate conduct that may have violated the law.”
Regardless of any impact Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny may have on FCPA reform, FCPA reform was unlikely to happen this year even before the recent coverage of Wal-Mart. When the DOJ in November 2011 promised FCPA guidance in 2012 (see here for the prior post), this forestalled introduction of an actual FCPA reform bill. Guidance has still not been released and when it is, there is likely to be an absorption period that flows into the election season.
Honestly debating and considering changes to a statute titled the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’ is a political hot potato. It always has been and will always be. For instance, several reform bills in the 1980’s sought to change the name of the law to the “Business Accounting and Foreign Trade Simplification Act” so that an honest and considered debate could occur.
Certain FCPA amendments occurred in 1998, but the last period of major substantive FCPA reform occurred in the 1980’s. Those reform efforts took approximately eight years.
FCPA reform is not dead, nor should it be. But it is likely going on a summer vacation. For more on my views on FCPA reform see this recent video (with many thanks to Levick Strategic Communications for the opportunity).
I conclude this post with guiding words from key players during the FCPA reform debates in the 1980’s.
In 1981, Senator Alfonse D’Amato opened Senate hearings on a bill to amend the FCPA. He stated that the bill “provides us with a good opportunity to assess the effect of recently enacted legislation and its implementation.” Senator D’Amato noted as follows. “The discussion which takes place during these hearings is not a debate between those who oppose bribery and those who support it. I see the major issue before us to be whether the law, including both its antibribery and accounting provisions, is the best approach, or whether it has created unnecessary costs and burdens out of proportion to the purposes for which it was enacted, and whether it serves our national interests.”
In an opening statement during Senate hearings, Senator John Chafee, a leader in the FCPA reform movement stated: “We’ve learned a great deal about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the last three years. We’ve learned that the best of intentions can go awry and create confusion and great cost to our economy.” During the hearing, Senator Chafee further stated as follows: “Critics have attempted to characterize my bill as a signal to U.S. companies that they can return to the ‘bad old days’ of foreign bribery. That is not my intent, nor should it be the signal. I abhor bribery, whether domestic or foreign, but I also dislike confusion. Thus, my bill will eliminate uncertainty while maintaining strong prohibitions against bribery. The ambiguities and murkiness of the bill’s language have caused U.S. companies to withdraw from legitimate markets and contributed to the decline in the U.S. share of world exports. We need to end this confusion.”
During Senate hearings, Senator D’Amato also noted as follows: “The thing that bothers me about this kind of a debate is that we tend to posture this thing as if somebody were for or against bribery. I think it is important to state for the record that bribery of any foreign official by any U.S. concern is bad for our national health, and it is something that we have got to stop, we have got to deal with, and we have, I think, gone a long way with the FCPA. What we proposed to do is to simplify that law and to make it workable so that we can set that standard in concrete from now on and not have the abuses that occurred prior to 1977, but not by stopping exports, but by stopping bribery. That is the objective.” Senator D’Amato further stated as follows. “I think it is very important that in the committee’s work that we not create the attitude that this committee is making it easier for businesses to engage in illegal activity. That has, in fact, been suggested, not only by our distinguished colleague from Wisconsin [Senator Proxmire, a Senate leader in enactment of the FCPA who generally opposed the reform efforts], but also by certain journalists, who are questioning the need for proposed changes. I think that rather than hampering prosecution of illegal acts, [the reform bill at issue] would clarify and make possible just prosecution of those who engage in bribery. It would eliminate any ‘gray area’ by clearly spelling out the limits of the law.”
During Senate hearings, Senator John Heinz stated as follows. “… There are many people that are extremist, and there are others who get carried away by their enthusiasm who are going to argue that even if we change the provisions in the present act, that are unnecessary or ambiguous or uncertain, that even though we are not doing so, we are legalizing bribery. That strikes me as the worst kind of demagoguery, because it implies that everything that Congress has done in the past is perfect. And does anybody believe that?”
During the Senate hearing, William Satterwhite (Senior VP, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer of Enserch Corp.) testified. He began his testimony as follows: “Before I begin my comments, I would like to state for the record, Enserch Corp. is not in favor of bribery. It is a sad commentary on the political atmosphere surrounding this legislation that those who support the bill feel compelled to make clear that they do not condone corruption.”
My favorite quote from the FCPA reform debates of the 1980’s and one that rings true today is from William Brock (U.S. Trade Representative) who observed, during a 1982 FCPA reform hearing, as follows. “Just because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act spotlights a sensitive subject, some people wish to turn a ‘blind eye’ to its shortcomings rather than risk being accused of being ‘soft on bribery.’ That is too easy a way out. Retreating from controversy will not cure the law’s deficiencies. [… ] Is there any U.S. law that ought to be above such review and clarification – especially one as complex as the FCPA.”