Category: Foreign Official

Is ICE A Victim? And An Open Question!

“Bribery is not a victimless crime.”

It is a common sentence in DOJ FCPA talking points (see here for instance).

If bribery is not a victimless crime, then why do FCPA fines and penalties simply go directly into the U.S. Treasury? Why are there no efforts to identify the victims of FCPA violations and to compensate those victims? Bigger picture, who are the victims when FCPA violations occur?

Alexandra Wrage, President of Trace, observed in this piece that “compensating the victims of corruption is a hot new topic” and that “restitution to victims is hard not to like.” However, as Wrage noted, “the U.S. Department of Justice does not attempt to compensate victims of bribery.”

The topic has never been hotter.

Instituto Constarricense de Electricidad (“ICE”) of Costa Rica recently petitioned a Court (see here and here) “for protection of its rights as a victim” of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribey scheme.

In December 2010, it was announced that Alcatel-Lucent and certain subsidiaries agreed to resolve a wide-ranging FCPA enforcement action involving both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was approximately $137.4 million ($92 million criminal fine via DOJ plea agreements and a deferred prosecution agreement; $45.4 million in disgorgement via a SEC settled complaint). (See here for the prior post). In addition to Costa Rica, the conduct at issue also involved conduct in at least eight other countries.

ICE also objected to the plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreement agreed to between the DOJ and Alcatel-Lucent to resolve the enforcement action. Among other things, ICE argued that the agreements “are inconsistent with the interests of justice, with the public’s interests, and with public policy.”

This post summarizes ICE’s arguments, as well as the arguments of the DOJ and Alcatel-Lucent in opposition filings earlier this week.

Finally, this post identifies an open question (as least as to the Costa Rica conduct at issue in the enforcement action) that ought to give Judge Marcia Cooke (Southern District of Florida) pause during the June 1st hearing.

ICE is petitioning the Court “for protection of its rights as a victim of the Alcatel-Lucent Defendants and for appropriate sanctions resulting from the [DOJ’s] failure to protect those rights…”.

Even though ICE acknowledges that “three disloyal and corrupt Directors and two disloyal and corrupt employees” were the recipients of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribe payments, ICE nevertheless claims it is a victim because the “corrupt activities” of Alcatel-Lucent has caused the company “massive losses” and caused “ICE catastrophic harm.”

ICE argued that “it is universally recognized, in a scheme for bribery, that an entity whose employees accept improper benefits to affect corporate decisions is a victim.” ICE states that “the notion that acceptance of bribes by five of ICE’s more than 16,500 employees, managers, and directors necessarily renders ICE an active participant in Alcatel’s admitted bribery scheme is nonsense.”

As noted in this media report, Judge Cooke allowed ICE to argue that it should be considered a corruption victim and thus receive restitution. However, Judge Cooke reportedly stated that ICE “would not be at the top of the hit parade.”

Earlier this week, both the DOJ and Alcatel filed opposition briefs to ICE’s request for victim status and restitution.

In its response (here), the DOJ argued that “under the facts and circumstances in the instant matter, which reflect profound and pervasive corruption at the highest levels of ICE, the government does not believe it is appropriate to consider ICE a victim in these cases.”

Elsewhere, the DOJ stated that “it does not follow tht the state-owned entity at which corruption was so pervasive in the tender process should now be permitted status as a victim or awarded restitution under the facts and circumstances in these cases.”

The DOJ then reviewed “facts and circumstances” that has “led the government to conclude that not just the corrupt ICE officials are to blame for the corruption that existed at ICE, but ICE itself as an organization is also responsible.” (emphasis in original).

The DOJ stated as follows. “In short, ICE as an organization appears to have had a deeply ingrained culture of corruption. First, it appears clear that corruption at ICE existed for many years – if not decades – according to [a DOJ cooperator who previously plead guilty]. Second, this corrupt conduct did not just involve some low-level employees. Here, nearly half of the Board of Directors of ICE received bribes in just this case alone. It is hard to conceive of a component of a business organization more in control of and responsible for an organization than the board of directors, which in this case appears to have been profoundly corrupt. Third, the corruption at ICE as an organization was pervasive in the tender process.” (emphasis in original).

In a separate section of its brief, the DOJ argued that “while the government does not believe ICE is a victim under the facts and circumstances present here, the Court need not decide this issue to dispose of this matter” because “regardless of whether ICE is a victim, this Court, the U.S. Probation Office, and the government have afforded ICE the rights of a crime victim contained in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.”

The DOJ’s brief was authored by Charles Duross (DOJ FCPA Unit Chief) and Andrew Gentin (Fraud Section Trial Attorney from D.C.).

In a separate DOJ brief (here) filed in support of the proposed plea agreements and DPA, the DOJ argued that the resolutions “reflect the seriousness of the conduct, promotes respect for the law, and provides for just punishment for the offenses committed.” The DOJ argued that even if ICE is considered a victim, it does not have “veto power over prosecutorial decisions, strategies, or tactics” and that “it is unclear what standing, if any, ICE has to object to the DPA.”

In its response brief (here) the Alcatel entities [represented by Martin Weinstein and Robert Meyer of Willkie Farr & Gallagher – see here and here – and Jon Sale of Sale & Weintraub] argued as follows. “ICE’s Motion for restitution should be denied for two independent reasons. First, ICE is not entitled to restitution because it was a participant in the conduct underlying the offense to which Defendants will be pleading guilty. […] Second, the Court should reject ICE’s Motion because a determination of restitution would unduly complicate and prolong the sentencing process. [Note – although not separately highlighted above, a similar argument was made by the DOJ in its brief]. Alcatel argued that “just as Alcatel is responsible, ICE itself is responsible for the ICE-Alcatel bribery scheme because its top management, including several members of its board of directors and senior officers, actively participated in the bribery.”

Compensating the victims of bribery is a valid and legitimate issue, even if the ICE petition presents an unusual situation in that bribe recipients were officers, directors, or employees of the entity claiming victim status. I am not sure where criminal fines should go when a French company bribes Costa Rican “foreign officials,” but I am pretty sure than the answer should not be 100% to the U.S. Treasury.

Judge Cooke will hold a hearing on the issue on June 1st.

*****

But wait, were those even Costa Rican “foreign officials” Alcatel-Lucent bribed?
And now to the open question and an issue Judge Cooke ought to probe closely during the June 1st hearing.

According to the applicable DOJ plea agreement (here) “Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad S.A. (“ICE”) was a wholly state-owned telecommunications authority in Costa Rica responsible for awarding and administering public tenders for telecommunications contracts. ICE was governed by a seven-member board of directors that evaluated and approved, on behalf of the government of Costa Rica, all bid proposals submitted by telecommunications companies. The Board of Directors was led by an Executive President, who was appointed by the President of Costa Rica. The other members of the Board of Directors were appointed by the President of Costa Rica and the Costa Rican governing cabinet. Accordingly, officers, directors and employees of ICE were ‘foreign officials’ within the meaning of the FCPA …”.

Nonsense says ICE.

In its brief, under a heading titled “ICE is an autonomous entity with an independent board of directors and management”, ICE stated as follows. “ICE is an autonomous legal entity responsible for providing electrical power and telecommunications services in Costa Rica. The organizational statute and subsequent decrees provides for the absolute autonomy of ICE. This includes a seven-member, independent Board of Directors appointed by the Costa Rican Government who serve six-year terms. They cannot be removed absent malfeasance. These Directors include engineers, accountants, and lawyers with distinct areas of expertise. None of the Directors are affiliated with the Costa Rican Government. The Board of Directors appoints and oversees the management and operation of ICE in a manner similar to other large corporations.”

Based on ICE’s self-description, it would not seem to be a FCPA victim because a crime never took place because the elements of an FCPA violation – namely the existence of a “foreign official” was absent. [Note – Alcatel-Lucent was not charged with FCPA anti-bribery violations, yet the relevant subsidiary was charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions and a conspiracy charge requires the existence of a “foreign official”].

As the DOJ has stated in the recent “foreign official” challenges, “for a court to accept a plea of guilty a district court must have a basis to believe that a crime has been committed.”

Judge Cooke ought to do just that on June 1st given that stark differences in DOJ’s description of ICE and ICE’s description of itself.

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.”

Tenaris Resolves FCPA Enforcement – SEC Uses a DPA For the First Time

Once upon a time there was a law enforcement system in this country where companies that committed crimes or engaged in other wrongdoing were prosecuted criminally and/or civilly and where companies that did not commit crimes or did not engage in other wrongdoing were not prosecuted. That system has to a large extent been abandoned by the DOJ years ago – particularly in the FCPA context – and now that system appears to be crumbling at the SEC as well.

In December 2010, the SEC entered into its first non-prosecution agreement – albeit not in the FCPA context (see here for the prior post) and yesterday the SEC announced its first deferred prosecution agreement – of any kind – against Tenaris to resolve an FCPA enforcement action.

As has generally happened with the DOJ’s enforcement of the FCPA, the SEC’s enforcement of the FCPA will now be even further removed from judicial scrutiny and resolutions will now more frequently be negotiated over private conference room tables.

This is a troubling development on many fronts and it gives the public little confidence that our laws are enforced in a consistent and transparent manner or that regulators and companies are being held accountable.

With that introduction, let’s take a look at the Tenaris enforcement action.

Tenaris (here) “is a leading supplier of tubes and related services for the world’s energy industry and certain other industrial applications.” Tenaris is headquartered in Luxembourg and its American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”) are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In FCPA-speak, that makes Tenaris an “issuer.”

The enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was $8.9 million ($3.5 million criminal penalty via a DOJ non prosecution agreement; $5.4 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via a SEC deferred prosecution agreement … its feels odd just writing that).

Both enforcement actions involve commission payments to an Uzbekistan agent to receive confidential bidding documents in connection with tenders conducted by alleged Uzbekistan state-owned or state-controlled companies. The enforcement actions state that Tenaris employees “were aware or substantially certain that all or a portion” of the commission payments would be offered by the Agent to employees at the SOEs and that certain of the payments were paid via a wire transfer through a New York bank account.

DOJ

The NPA (here – dated March 14, 2011) begins as follows.

The DOJ “will not criminally prosecute” Tenaris and its subsidiaries and affiliates for any crimes “related to Tenaris’s knowing violations of the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA … arising from and related to the making of improper payments by employees and agents of Tenaris to officials of OJSC O’ztashqineftgaz (“OAO”), an Uzbekistan state-controlled oil and gas production company, and the accounting and record-keeping associated with these improper payments.”

The NPA has a term of two years and Tenaris admitted, accepted, and acknowledged responsibility for the below described conduct. As is typical in FCPA NPAs or DPAs, Tenaris agreed “not to make any public statement contradicting” the described conduct.

According to the NPA, Tenaris has more than 24,000 employees around the world and it conducts operations in 12 countries and its customers include the world’s leading oil and gas companies. The NPA states that Tenaris’s operations included supplying steel pipe and related servics in the Caspian Sea region, including Uzbekistan. This region accounted for approximately 1% of Tenaris’s total global sales and services from 2003 to 2008. Tenaris’s Caspian Sea business was run from offices in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

According to the NPA, “Tenaris obtained oilfeld services business in the Caspian Sea region in part by bidding on contracts solicited by state-owned companies or governmental agencies to provide pipeline used in the development and production of oil and natural gas. Tenaris often used agents to assist in biddig on government contracts in the Caspian Sea region.”

The conduct at issue focused on OAO contracts between 2006 and 2007. According to the NPA, OAO “was a wholly owned subsidiary of Uzbekneftegaz, the state holding company of Uzbekistan’s oil and gas industry” and during the relevant time period “Uzbekneftegaz and OAO were wholly owned by the Government Uzbekistan.” The NPA then states, “OAO was an agency and instrumentality of the Government of Uzbekistan and its employees were foreign officials within the meaning of the FCPA.”

According to its website (here) the current ownership of OAO is as follows: “government’s share – 51%; foreign investors’ share – 37.27%; free market trade share – 11.73%.”

According to the NPA, in December 2006, Tenaris “was introduced to a potential agent (“OAO Agent”) to help Tenaris bid on additional contracts with OAO” and “as an incentive to retain the OAO Agent, the OAO Agent offered Tenaris access to confidential bidding information of competitors obtained from officials in OAO’s tender department, who would allow Tenaris to submit revised bids after reviewing the confidential information.” The NPA states that “Tenaris would use the confidential competitor bid information to submit revised bids in order to increase the likelihood of Tenaris being awarded the underlying contract.”

According to the NPA, Tenaris “agreed to pay the OAO Agent a fee of 3.5% for these services” and that Employees A, B, C, and D (non-U.S. citizens but “employees and agents” of Tenaris) “were aware or substantially certain that all or a portion of such money would be offered by the OAO Agent to one or more OAO employees.”

The NPA then lists approximately $19.4 million in contracts Tenaris obtained using this system and states that certain of the commission payments to the OAO Agent were paid via wire transfer through a New York bank account.

Under the heading “Additional Improper Conduct to Avoid Detection,” the NPA states that in November 2007 the above referenced employees learned of complaints from company competitors as to the bidding process on certain of the contracts and that an investigation by Uzbekekspertiza JSC (a Uzbekistani government agency) might commence. According to the NPA, “in an effort to avert the potential investigation of the bidding process, the OAO Agent recommended to Tenaris that the OAO Agent make an improper payment to Uzbekekspertiza officials to refrain from recommending the investigation against Tenaris or re-opening the bidding process to Tenaris’s competitors” and that the employees “agreed to pay the recommended payment” to the officials to avert the investigation. However, the NPA states as follows: “the investigation did not uncover evidence that any such payment was made.”

As to books and records, the NPA states that “the books, records and accounts reflecting Tenaris’s transactions … were incorporated into Tenaris’s consolidated year-end financial statements” and that “Tenaris knowingly failed to make and keep books, records, and accounts that accurately and fairly reflected Tenaris’s transactions … and the payments to the OAO Agent.”

Based on the above conduct, Tenaris agreed to pay a $3.5 million criminal penalty. The NPA states as follows. “This substantially reduced monetary penalty reflects the DOJ’s determination to meaningfully credit Tenaris for its extraordinary cooperation with the Department, including its timely and voluntary disclosure, its subsequent investigation, and the effective manner in which Tenaris conveyed information to the [DOJ and the SEC].”

Inquiring minds want to know – how much was the penalty “substantially reduced?”

According to the NPA, the DOJ agreed to resolve the action via an NPA based, in part, on the following factors.

(a) Tenaris’s timely, voluntary, and complete disclosure of the conduct at issue;

(b) Tenaris’s extensive, thorough, real-time cooperation with the DOJ and the SEC;

(c) subsequent to its voluntary disclosure of certain conduct unrelated to Uzbekistan, but prior to discovery of the unlawful conduct related to Uzbekistan, Tenaris’s voluntary investigation of the Company’s business operations throughout the world, specifically including the thorough and effective manner in which this investigation was carried out and information was disclosed to the DOJ and SEC;

(d) Tenaris’s remedial efforts already undertaken and to be undertaken, including voluntary enhancements to its compliance program; and

(e) Tenaris’s commitment to implement enchanced compliance measures described in the NPA.

Based on (c) above, inquiring minds want to know – what did Tenaris originally voluntarily disclose?

Under the heading, “Disclosure and Investigation of Improper Activity,” the NPA states as follows.

“In or about March 2009, a third party disclosed to Tenaris information indicating that certain sales agency payments were made by Tenaris in relation to business in a country other than Uzbekistan. These payments appeared to be for an improper purpose. In response to this information, Tenaris’s Audit Committee retained outside counsel to investigate the allegations. Thereafter, in a Form 20-F filed with the SEC on or about June 30, 2009, Tenaris disclosed information related to these allegations. Tenaris also made a prompt, full disclosure of the information to the [DOJ] and the [SEC] concerning the allegations. In or around July 2009, counsel for Tenaris met with the [DOJ and SEC] and disclosed preliminary findings of the internal investigation. Such disclosure was related to facts known to Tenaris at the time but was not related to transactions in Uzbekistan. Tenaris’s counsel also informed the [DOJ and the SEC] that it would conduct a thorough, world-wide investigation of its business operations and internal controls and would report the findings to the [DOJ and SEC]. Tenaris’s investigation plan included significant collection and review of a substantial quantity of electronic and paper records from the company and third parties from multiple locations around the world, translation of all relevant materials into English, subsequent interviews of relevant personnel including senior executives and third parties, and review and testing of internal controls and compliance procedures. In or around June 2010, Tenaris disclosed the factual findings from its internal investigation in a thorough, complete and useful manner to the [DOJ and SEC]. As a result of its internal investigation, Tenaris discovered facts and transactions in Uzbekistan that constitute the violations set forth above. Tenaris voluntaly engaged in certain remediation efforts to include termination and disciplinary measures of the persons involved. Tenaris also thoroughly reviewed its pre-existing compliance program and applicable internal controls, and undertook voluntary, affirmative steps to update and improve its compliance program and to implement enhanced compliance measures and controls. Tenaris also agreed to provide real and meaningful cooperation with the [DOJ and SEC] and any law enforcement agency in connection with this matter.”

Again, inquiring minds want to know – what did Tenaris originally voluntarily disclose?

See here for the DOJ’s release announcing the enforcement action.

SEC

The SEC DPA (here) is based on the same core conduct described above.

As to internal controls, the SEC DPA states as follows.

“… Tenaris’s system of internal controls failed to detect or prevent payments to OAO officials in an effort to obtain and retain business in Uzbekistan, including a failure to ensure that proper and effective due diligence was conducted on the Agent for the OAO contracts, and that the review process for authorization or approval of payments to the Agent failed to detect or prevent the illegal payments to OAO officials. Tenaris’s policies, procedures and training related to anticorruption and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) compliance in place at that time warranted further strengthening to ensure effective compliance with the related laws.”

One of the undertakings Tenaris agreed to in the DPA was the following.

“To conduct effective training regarding anticorruption and compliance with the FCPA for (1) all current officers and managers, (2) all employees working in Finance, Accounting, Internal Audit, Sales, and Government Relations, (3) all other employees working in positions Tenaris deems to involve activities implicated by Tenaris’s policies regarding anticorruption and compliance with the FCPA, on or before December 31, 2011, and (4) all such future employees within 90 days oftheir affiliation with Tenaris.”

Under the terms of the two-year DPA, Tenaris, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations (the same way defendants are ordinarly allowed to resolve SEC enforcement actions), agreed to pay $5.4 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

Pursuant to the DPA, Tenaris agreed “not to contest or contradict the factual statements” supporting the Statement of Facts. As noted in this prior post when the SEC announced its intention to make use of NPAs and DPAs, “[a]n admission or an agreement not to contest the relevant facts underlying the alleged offenses” is a key factor the SEC will consider in determining whether a company should receive a deferred prosecution agreement.

Like the SEC’s prior NPA, the Tenaris DPA is very similar to DOJ DPAs and NPAs.

In a release (here) the SEC touted its first use of a DPA.

Robert Khuzami (Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement) stated as follows. “The Tenaris foreign bribery scheme was unacceptable and unlawful, but the company’s response demonstrated high levels of corporate accountability and cooperation. The company’s immediate self-reporting, thorough internal investigation, full cooperation with SEC staff, enhanced anti-corruption procedures, and enhanced training made it an appropriate candidate for the Enforcement Division’s first Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Effective enforcement of the securities laws includes acknowledging and providing credit to those who fully and completely support our investigations and who display an exemplary commitment to compliance, cooperation, and remediation.”‬

Cheryl Scarboro (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated as follows. “Tenaris’s conduct was clearly in violation of the FCPA. The company’s employees bribed government officials in Uzbekistan to obtain government contracts. But when Tenaris discovered the illegal conduct, it took noteworthy steps to address the violations and significantly enhance its anti-corruption policies and practices to remediate weaknesses in its internal controls.”

Robert Giuffra, Jr. of Sullivan & Cromwell (here) represented Tenaris.

“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.”

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.