Category: Investigative Fees

Assistant Attorney General Caldwell – “We Do Not Expect Companies To Aimlessly Boil The Ocean”

The article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples” discusses how settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from FCPA scrutiny or enforcement.

The largest component of FCPA enforcement or scrutiny tends to be pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses.  Where an analysis is possible (it is not possible in all cases because not all companies disclose pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses) the ratio of pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses to settlement amount is often 3, 5, 7 times (or even higher) actual settlement amounts.

In the minds of many, pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses have spiraled out of control and have become a boondoggle for FCPA Inc.

As highlighted in “A Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Narrative,” in 2013 Charles Duross (at the time the DOJ’s FCPA Unit Chief) called out the industry at an American Bar Association event. Duross suggested that often company lawyers are seeking to over-do-it through a global search of operations for FCPA issues. He discussed a case in which a company and its professional advisors came to a meeting with a global search plan and he said “no, no, no, that is not what I want.” He indicated that the lawyers and other professional advisors in the room ‘looked unhappy,’ but that the general counsel of the company was happy.”

The above “Narrative” article also highlighted calls for greater restraint from various FCPA lawyers.

As highlighted in this prior post, one of most interesting portions of the December 2014 Avon deferred prosecution agreement was the following statement by the DOJ.

“The Department also considered that the Company, taking into account its own business interests, expended considerable resources on a company wide review of and enhancements to its compliance program and internal controls.  While the Company’s efforts in this regard were taken without Department request or guidance, and at times caused unintended delays in the progress of the Department’s narrower investigations, the Department recognizes that the Company’s efforts resulted in important compliance and internal controls improvements.”

Against this backdrop, last week Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell gave this speech at an event hosted by New York University Law School’s Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement.  As relevant to the topic of this post, Caldwell stated:

“All too often, criticism is leveled against the Justice Department for purportedly causing companies to spend years, and many millions of dollars, investigating potential violations.  This is particularly true in the FCPA context where the need for international evidence can add to the expense and burden of an investigation.  Critics wrongly question the wisdom of disclosing misconduct and cooperating with the government in light of what they perceive to be the department’s requirement that companies then must conduct unnecessarily costly, time consuming and widespread investigations.

There is no question that some cooperating companies spend large sums of money investigating potential misconduct and correcting internal controls issues that allowed the misconduct to occur.  The decision to incur those costs, however, is one made by those companies, not a requirement of the department.  When a company chooses to cooperate with the government, the manner in which the company approaches its cooperation, and its own investigation of the conduct, can significantly affect the length of the investigation and the costs incurred by the company.

Although we expect internal investigations to be thorough, we do not expect companies to aimlessly boil the ocean.  Indeed, there have been some instances in which companies have, in our view, conducted overly broad and needlessly costly investigations, in some cases delaying our ability to resolve matters in a timely fashion.

For example, if a company discovers an FCPA violation in one country, and has no basis to suspect that violations are occurring elsewhere, we would not necessarily expect it to extend its investigation beyond the conduct in that country.  On the other hand, if the same people involved in the violation also operated in other countries, we likely would expect the investigation to be broader.

This example is not intended to suggest the proper scope of an investigation of any given matter.  My point instead is that, to receive cooperation credit, we expect companies to conduct appropriately tailored investigations designed to root out misconduct, identify wrongdoers and provide all available facts.  To the extent a company decides to conduct a broader survey of its operations, that decision, and any attendant delay and cost, are the result of the company’s choices, not the department’s requirement.

To assist cooperating companies in appropriately targeting their investigations, to the extent possible, we will make clear to those companies our areas of interest.  I tell my prosecutors that where possible, if it would not compromise our own investigation, we should share information about our investigation with a cooperating company to help focus the company’s internal inquiry.  I encourage an open dialogue between company counsel and our prosecutors about the progress of the internal investigation.  Companies that truly demonstrate a commitment to cooperation will find that this dialogue comes easily.”

Issues To Consider From The Avon Enforcement Action

This recent post dived deep into the Avon FCPA enforcement action.

This post continues the analysis by highlighting various issues to consider associated with the enforcement action.

The Gray Cloud of FCPA Scrutiny Lasted A Long Time And Was Very Expensive

Avon disclosed its FCPA scrutiny in China in October 2008.  In other words, it was 6 years and 2 months from the time of disclosure to the actual enforcement action.  While FCPA scrutiny typically lasts between 2-4 years, Avon’s FCPA scrutiny was extraordinarily long.  (For additional reading see this prior post “The Gray Cloud of FCPA Scrutiny Simply Lasts Too Long”).

Avon’s FCPA scrutiny was also very expensive.  For years, the whisper in the FCPA community was how expensive  – and dragged out – FCPA’s internal investigation and pre-enforcement professional fees and expenses were.  Not all companies disclose pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, but Avon did and those figures were approximately $500 million (see here).

Avon’s FCPA scrutiny thus supported the claim in my article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples” that settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from FCPA scrutiny or enforcement in this new era.  Indeed, the broader effects of Avon’s FCPA scrutiny (including pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses and an impact on bond ratings) is discussed in the article.

Given the above-mentioned whispers, one of the most interesting portions of the DOJ’s DPA was the following.

“The Department also considered that the Company, taking into account its own business interests, expended considerable resources on a company wide review of and enhancements to its compliance program and internal controls.  While the Company’s efforts in this regard were taken without Department request or guidance, and at times caused unintended delays in the progress of the Department’s narrower investigations, the Department recognizes that the Company’s efforts resulted in important compliance and internal controls improvements.”

Root Cause

It has been highlighted numerous times on these pages (see here for instance).

The root cause of many FCPA enforcement actions are foreign trade barriers and distortions.  The narrative is rather simple.

• Trade barriers and distortions create bureaucracy.
• Bureaucracy creates points of contact with foreign officials.
• Points of contact with foreign officials create discretion.
• Discretion creates the opportunity for a foreign official to misuse their position by making bribe demands.

The following is not meant to excuse Avon’s conduct, only to put it in the proper perspective.

The root cause of Avon’s FCPA scrutiny was that China had significant trade barriers and distortions applicable to direct selling of products.  As highlighted in the resolution documents, “under China’s newly promulgated direct selling regulations, to conduct direct sales, a company was required to obtain a national direct selling license and approvals from each province and municipality in which it sought to conduct direct sales.”

As I have long argued, the way to reduce bribery is not just to bring more corporate enforcement actions.  It is to address the root causes of bribery by seeking a reduction in trade barriers and distortions.

Two Enforcement Actions In One

The Avon enforcement action was really two distinct enforcement actions in terms of conduct.

On one level, Avon’s indirect China subsidiary intentionally disguised certain payments of things of value (individually small, but in the aggregate large) from Avon during the general time period in which they were occurring.

Yet, the second prong of the enforcement action, more problematic from a corporate governance standpoint, is that once Avon learned of the improper conduct in 2005/2006, Avon failed to take steps to stop and remedy the situation.

Much like the developing story around Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny, Avon appears to be more of a corporate governance sandwich with the FCPA as a mere condiment.  Based on the conduct alleged by the DOJ and SEC, Avon (the parent company) appeared to fail to take ownership of the issues at its indirect China subsidiary on a real-time basis.  (For additional details on this aspect of the enforcement action see this prior post).

If “only” the alleged improper payments by Avon China had taken place, it stands to reason that the settlement amount would have been much lower.

Surprisingly Limited

Based on Avon’s pre-enforcement action disclosures, many were expecting that the Avon FCPA enforcement would be broader than just China.  After all, Avon disclosed that it was conducting an internal review in a “number of countries selected to represent each of the Company’s international geographic segments” and according to its website the company does business in over 100 countries.

That the Avon enforcement action was limited to China highlights an issue that can be highlighted in most FCPA enforcement actions.  While it is easy in hindsight to fault a company for internal control failures as to the specific payments alleged, that the company conducted an internal review in many other countries and found nothing (at least nothing serious enough to be alleged in an FCPA enforcement action) does suggests that the company’s overall internal controls were reasonable and adequate.

SEC Brings Another Travel And Entertainment FCPA Enforcement Action

Yesterday, the SEC brought its 7th Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action of 2014.  Like the previous 6 enforcement actions (5 against companies and 1 against individuals), the enforcement action was resolved via the SEC’s administrative process.

Yesterday’s enforcement action against life-sciences company Bruker Corporation was primarily based on excessive travel and entertainment benefits provided to alleged Chinese “foreign officials.”  The same core conduct was the basis of the SEC’s other most recent FCPA enforcement (see here).

In summary fashion, the SEC’s order sates:

“This matter concerns violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by Bruker. The violations took place from at least 2005 through 2011 and occurred throughout Bruker’s China operations. Employees of the China offices of four Bruker subsidiaries (collectively, the “Bruker China Offices”) made unlawful payments of approximately $230,938 to government officials (“Chinese government officials”) who were employed by state owned entities (“SOEs”) in China that were Bruker customers. These payments were made to obtain or retain business from the SOEs for the Bruker China Offices. Specifically, all of the Bruker China Offices provided non-business related travel to Chinese government officials, and one Bruker China Office also paid Chinese government officials under “research cooperation” ventures and “collaboration” agreements (collectively, the “Collaboration Agreements”) for which there was no legitimate business purpose. Bruker realized approximately $1.7 million in profits from sales contracts with SOEs whose officials received the improper payments.

The payments to the Chinese government officials were recorded as legitimate business and marketing expenses in the Bruker China Offices’ books and records, when in fact they were improper payments designed to personally benefit the officials. The Bruker China Offices’ books and records were consolidated into Bruker’s books and records, thereby causing Bruker’s books and records to be inaccurate. Bruker failed to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent and detect the improper payments that occurred over several years.”

According to the SEC order:

‘Bruker manages its China operations through the Shanghai and Beijing representative offices of the Asia-based subsidiaries of four Bruker divisions: Bruker Optics, Bruker BioSpin, Bruker Daltonics, and Bruker Materials (formerly Bruker AXS).”

Under the heading “The Bruker China Offices Improperly Funded Leisure Travel for Chinese Government Officials,” the Order states:

“The Bruker China Offices funded leisure travel for Chinese government officials to visit the United States, the Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. These leisure trips typically followed business-related travel funded by the Bruker China Offices. The Chinese government officials who went on the trips often authorized the purchase of products from the Bruker China Offices. For example, during 2006, as part of a sales contract with an SOE, a Bruker China Office paid for purported training expenses for a Chinese government official (who signed the sales contract on behalf of the SOE). In fact, the payment included reimbursement for sightseeing, tour tickets, shopping and other leisure activities in Frankfurt and Paris. Also, in 2007, a Bruker China Office paid for three Chinese government officials to visit Sweden for a conference, but included as part of the travel, several days of sightseeing in Sweden, Finland, and Norway.

The Bruker China Offices also funded certain trips for Chinese government officials that had no legitimate business component. For example, during 2009, a Bruker China Office paid for two Chinese government officials to travel to New York, despite the lack of any Bruker facilities there, and to Los Angeles, where they engaged in sightseeing activities. Also during 2009, a Bruker China Office paid for three Chinese government officials to visit destinations in Europe for sightseeing. In another instance, during 2010, a Bruker China Office paid for three Chinese government officials to visit Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Stuttgart, and Munich, in Germany, as well as Salzburg, Liz, Innsbruck, Graz, and Vienna, in Austria. And in 2011, a Bruker China Office paid for Chinese government officials from seven SOEs to go on sightseeing visits to Europe, including Austria, France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Czech Republic. In certain cases, the Chinese government officials who went on these trips were involved in purchasing products from the Bruker China Offices.

Overall, from 2005 through 2011, the Bruker China Offices paid approximately $119,710 to fund 17 trips for Chinese government officials that were for the most part not related to any legitimate business purpose. These trips were recorded in Bruker’s books and records as business expenses, without any indication that they were primarily for sightseeing and other nonbusiness related activities. Bruker improperly profited by $1,131,740 from contracts obtained from the SOEs whose officials participated on these trips.”

Under the heading, “A Bruker China Office Improperly Funneled Payments to Officials of SOEs Under the Guise of Collaboration and Research Agreements,” the Order states:

“From 2008 through 2011, a Bruker China Office paid $111,228 to Chinese government officials pursuant to 12 suspect Collaboration Agreements. Generally, under these Collaboration Agreements, the SOEs had to provide research on Bruker products, or had to use Bruker products in demonstration laboratories. However, the Collaboration Agreements did not specify the work product that the SOEs had to provide to be paid, and no work product was in fact provided to the Bruker China Office by the SOEs. Also, certain Collaboration Agreements were executed directly with a Chinese government official, rather than the SOE itself; in some cases, the Bruker China Office paid the Chinese government official directly. And at times, the Chinese government officials who signed the Collaboration Agreements or obtained payments under the Agreements were involved in purchasing products from the Bruker China Office. Bruker profited by approximately $583,112 from contracts improperly obtained from the SOEs whose officials received payments under the Collaboration Agreements.”

Under the heading, “Bruker Failed to Implement an Adequate Internal Controls System,” the Order states:

“From at least 2005 through 2011, Bruker failed to implement an adequate internal controls system to address the potential FCPA problems posed by its ownership of the Bruker China Offices, which sold their products primarily to SOEs. For example, Bruker did not translate its training presentations on FCPA, ethics, or compliance issues into local languages, including Mandarin. And although Bruker implemented an FCPA policy in 2006, it failed to translate that policy into Mandarin and relied mainly on its China-based managers to ensure that employees understood the potential FCPA implications of doing business with SOEs. Also, while Bruker periodically distributed its Code of Conduct (containing its gifts and entertainment policies) and employee handbook to employees worldwide, it again failed to translate these documents into local languages, including Chinese. Likewise, Bruker’s toll free employee hotline, which employees were to use to report complaints anonymously, was not provided in Mandarin, limiting its efficacy.

Bruker also failed to adequately monitor and supervise the senior executives at the Bruker China Offices to ensure that they enforced anti-corruption policies or kept accurate records concerning payments to Chinese government officials. The Bruker China Offices had no independent compliance staff or an internal audit function that had authority to intervene into management decisions and, if appropriate, take remedial actions. Bruker also failed to tailor its preapproval processes for conditions in China, instead allowing the Bruker China Offices approval over items such as nonemployee travel and changes to contracts. As a result, senior employees of the Bruker China Offices had unsupervised control over the compliance process; these employees in turn abused their privileges, approving suspect payments to Chinese government officials for non-business related travel and for purported Collaboration Agreements.”

Based on the above findings, the SEC’s Order finds that Bruker violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.

Under the heading, “Discovery, Internal Investigation, and Self-Reporting,” the Order states:

“Bruker discovered the improper payments to Chinese government officials during 2011 while investigating the misappropriation of company funds by certain employees of a Bruker China Office. Upon learning about these payments, Bruker’s board of directors promptly initiated an investigation, with the assistance of independent outside counsel and an independent forensic consulting firm. Bruker self-reported the preliminary results of its internal investigation to both the staff of the Commission and to the Department of Justice. Thereafter, Bruker, on its own initiative, undertook a broad review of the China operations of its other divisions. To the extent this internal review identified additional issues of concern, Bruker fully shared its findings with the staff.

As part of its internal review and investigation, Bruker promptly undertook significant remedial measures including terminating the senior staff at each of the Bruker China Offices. Bruker also revised its pre-existing compliance program, updated and enhanced its financial accounting controls and its compliance protocols and policies, and implemented those enhancements in China, and thereafter around the world. These steps included: (1) instituting preapproval processes for nonemployee travel and significant changes to contracts; (2) establishing a new internal audit function and hiring a new director of internal audit who is charged with oversight over Bruker’s global compliance program, including FCPA compliance; (3) adopting an amended FCPA policy translated into local languages; (4) implementing an enhanced FCPA training program, which includes training programs in local languages as well as mandatory online employee training programs regarding ethics and FCPA compliance; (5) enhancing due diligence procedures for third-parties; and (6) implementing a new global whistleblower hotline.

Throughout the process, Bruker provided extensive, thorough, and real-time cooperation with the Commission. In addition to self-reporting to the Commission shortly after discovering the FCPA violations, Bruker voluntarily provided the Commission with real-time reports of its investigative findings; shared its analysis of important documents and summaries of witness interviews; expanded the scope of the investigation at the Commission’s request; and responded to the Commission’s requests for documents and information in a timely manner. These actions assisted the Commission in efficiently collecting valuable evidence, including information that may not have been otherwise available to the staff.”

In this SEC release, Kara Brockmeyer (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated:

“Bruker’s lax internal controls allowed employees in its China offices to enter into sham ‘collaboration agreements’ to direct money to foreign officials and send officials on sightseeing trips around the world. The company has since taken significant remedial steps to revise its compliance program and enhance internal controls over travel and contract approvals.”

As noted in the release:

“The SEC’s order finds that Bruker violated the internal controls and books and records provisions of the [FCPA].  The company agreed to pay $1,714,852 in disgorgement, $310,117 in prejudgment interest, and a $375,000 penalty.  Bruker consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings, and the SEC considered the company’s significant remedial acts as well as its self-reporting and cooperation with the investigation when determining a settlement.”

Todd Cronan (Goodwin Procter) represented Bruker.

According to Bruker’s public disclosures, the company has spent approximately $22 million in pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses.  For more on this dynamic, and how settlement amounts in an FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences of FCPA scrutiny, see “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples.”

Yesterday, Bruker’s stock price fell 1.8%.

Potpourri

Wal-Mart Related

Here is what Wal-Mart said in its recent 3Q FY 2015 earnings call.

“FCPA and compliance-related costs were approximately $41 million, which represents approximately $30 million for the ongoing inquiries and investigations and approximately $11 million for our global compliance program and organizational enhancements. Last year, FCPA and compliance-related costs were $69 million for the third quarter.  Through the third quarter of this year, we have spent $137 million on FCPA  and compliance-related costs, versus our guidance of between $200 and  $240 million. We expect to be near the low end of the guidance for the full  year.”

Doing the math, that is approximately $640,000 in FCPA-related expenses per working day.

Over the past approximate two years, I have tracked Wal-Mart’s quarterly disclosed pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses. While some pundits have ridiculed me for doing so, such figures are notable because, as has been noted in prior posts and in my article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples,” settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are often only a relatively minor component of the overall financial consequences that can result from corporate FCPA scrutiny.  Pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses are typically the largest (in many cases to a degree of 3, 5, 10 or higher than settlement amounts) financial hit to a company under FCPA scrutiny.

While $640,000 per working day remains eye-popping, Wal-Mart’s recent figure suggests that the company’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses have crested as the figures for the past four quarters have been approximately $662,000, $855,000, $1.1 million and $1.3 million per working day.

In the aggregate, Wal-Mart’s disclosed pre-enforcement professional fees and expenses are as follows.

FY 2013 = $157 million.

FY 2014 = $282 million.

FY 2015 (first three quarters) = $137 million.

*****

Another ripple of FCPA scrutiny and enforcement highlighted in “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Ripples” is shareholder litigation in connection with FCPA scrutiny.

On that score, plaintiffs firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP recently sued the SEC in federal court seeking certain documents in the SEC’s possession concerning Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny.  In the complaint, Robbins Geller alleges that the SEC has improperly denied its Freedom of Information Act document requests.  The complaint alleges that the SEC’s reliance on a FOIA exemption concerning documents “compiled for law enforcement purposes” does not apply because the documents sought “were provided by and retained by Walmart, the subject of the SEC investigation, and therefore not “compiled for law enforcement purposes.”

*****

India’s Economic Times reports:

“The Indian arm of American retail giant Walmart has terminated a mid-level manager amid investigations into alleged violations of U.S. anti-bribery laws in the country. Two years ago, when the company was known as Bharti Wal-Mart, it had sacked its chief financial officer and the entire legal team in connection with the same probe. The mid-level manager, who received a termination notice last week, is also required to be available for questioning by the U.S. Department of Justice in the next five years.”

Petrobras

Petrobras, an oil and gas company in Brazil, has been the focus of much recent news.

Recently, the Financial Times reported that the DOJ and SEC have opened investigations into the company and reported that “U.S. authorities are looking into whether Petrobras or its employees, middlemen, or contractors, violated the FCPA.”  It was reported that there is also an open investigation in Brazil and the Financial Times noted that “prosecutors in Brazil allege that Petrobras and its contractors overinflated the cost of capital expenditure projects and acquisitions by hundreds of millions of dollars and paid part of the proceeds to politicians from the ruling Workers’ Party coalition.”  According to the Financial Times, the “ruling coalition politicians received 3 percent of all contracts.”

The apparent FCPA scrutiny of Petrobras is interesting on many levels.

For starters, certain FCPA enforcement actions have involved Petrobras employees – not as a payor of alleged improper payments – but as the recipient of alleged improper payments.  The enforcement theory of course is that the company making the alleged improper payments violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions because Petrobras was an alleged “instrumentality” of the Brazilian government and thus Petrobras employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA.

On the flip side of course is the fact that Petrobras has ADRs listed on a U.S. exchange and thus would be considered by the enforcement agencies to be an “issuer” subject to the FCPA.

In short, the enforcement theory that employees of SOEs are “foreign officials” results in an interesting paradox of sorts should there be an FCPA enforcement action against Petrobras as Petrobras employees would have been on “both sides” of the FCPA – an occurrence that has likely never happened before.  Taking the enforcement theory to its logical conclusion also means that the U.S. government is apparently investigating whether the Brazilian government has engaged in corruption.  A host of legal and policy issues would seem to arise.

Another interesting issue to ponder from Petrobras’s apparent FCPA scrutiny is whether any alleged improper payments by Petrobras – either directly or indirectly through others – to Brazilian officials would truly represent payments to ‘foreign officials.”

As highlighted in this prior post concerning the first FCPA enforcement action against a foreign issuer (albeit not charging violations of the anti-bribery provisions), according to a knowledgeable source at the SEC at the time, there was a belief that there were no “foreign” officials involved because Montedison, an Italian company, allegedly bribed Italian officials.

This dynamic has not been present in other foreign issuer FCPA enforcement actions (for instance Siemens did not allegedly bribe German “officials,” Technip did not allegedly bribe French “officials”, etc.) but would be present in any FCPA enforcement action against Petrobras.

Regarding the potential FCPA scrutiny of Petrobras, it appears that the subject of inquiry concerns potential payments made by third parties on behalf of Petrobras or at least with the knowledge of Petrobras employees.  As I indicated to the Wall Street Journal in this story:

“The vast majority of FCPA enforcement actions are indeed based upon indirect payments. If Petrobras paid an inflated amount to a contractor, the questions will be why, were they aware it was inflated, and what steps did they take to remedy the situation, or did they just accept the inflated amount with an inkling or suspicion that it would go somewhere else?”

More recently, the story continues to evolve and as highlighted in this recent Wall Street Journal article:

“Federal police [in Brazil last week] arrested 18 people, including Renato Duque, former director of engineering and services at Petrobras. Authorities allege he and others were part of a bribery and money-laundering scheme that has siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars from the state-owned oil firm into the pockets of employees, contractors and politicians. Police also served dozens of search warrants and raided the offices of 11 companies they suspect of participating in a scam. The companies, which include Brazilian multinationals Odebrecht SA, Camargo Corrêa SA, Construtora OAS SA and others, are suspected of colluding to inflate the costs of work performed for Petrobras. Prosecutors allege some of the resulting profits were funneled to Petrobras executives and high-level politicians, including some members of the president’s ruling Workers’ Party, a charge the party has repeatedly denied.”

As a result of the controversy swirling about the company, Petrobras recently announced that it was “unable to release its third quarter 2014 financial statements at this time.”

Separately, Reuters reported:

“Petrobras said on Monday it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission asking for documents relating to an investigation it is pursuing. […]  Petrobras did not provide details as to what documents the SEC had requested. The company is also under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. […] The U.S. investigation, conducted by both the SEC and the DOJ, is “broad” in nature and has been ongoing since at least the start of 2014, the person said.”

In short, the apparent FCPA scrutiny of Petrobras raises several interesting issues worthy of pondering.  Should there be an enforcement action against the company for violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, it would be historic for the reasons discussed above.

Whistleblower Statistics

The Dodd-Frank Act enacted in July 2010 contained whistleblower provisions applicable to all securities law violations including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  In this prior post from July 2010, I predicted that the new whistleblower provisions would have a negligible impact on FCPA enforcement.  As noted in this prior post, my prediction was an outlier (so it seemed) compared to the flurry of law firm client alerts that predicted that the whistleblower provisions would have a significant impact on FCPA enforcement.  So anxious was FCPA Inc. for a marketing opportunity to sell its compliance services, some even called the generic whistleblower provision the FCPA’s “new” whistleblower provisions.

So far, there has not been any whistleblower award in connection with an FCPA enforcement action.  Given that enforcement actions (from point of first disclosure to resolution) typically take between 2-4 years, it still may be too early to effectively analyze the impact of the whistleblower provisions on FCPA enforcement.

Whatever your view, I previously noted that the best part of the new whistleblower provisions were that its impact on FCPA enforcement can be monitored and analyzed because the SEC is required to submit annual reports to Congress.  Recently, the SEC released (here) its annual report for FY2014.

Of the 3620 whistleblower tips received by the SEC in FY2014, 4.4% (159) related to the FCPA. As noted in this similar post from last year, of the 3,238 whistleblower tips received by the SEC in FY2013, 4.6% (149) related to the FCPA.  As noted in this similar post from 2012, of the 3,001 whistleblower tips received by the SEC in FY2012, 3.8% (115) related to the FCPA.  In FY2011 (a partial reporting year)  3.9% of the 334 tips received by the SEC related to the FCPA.

Yes, in the future there will be a whistleblower award made in the context of an FCPA enforcement action.  Yes, there will be much ink spilled on this occasion and wild predictions about this “new trend.”  Yet, I stand by my prediction – now 4.5 years old, that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions will have a negligible impact on FCPA enforcement.

Friday Roundup

Scrutiny updates, the story of the FCPA, keep it simple, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Updates

Goodyear

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. has been under FCPA scrutiny for approximately three years concerning conduct in Kenya and Angola. Earlier this week the company disclosed:

“In June 2011, an anonymous source reported, through our confidential ethics hotline, that our majority-owned joint venture in Kenya may have made certain improper payments. In July 2011, an employee of our subsidiary in Angola reported that similar improper payments may have been made in Angola. Outside counsel and forensic accountants were retained to investigate the alleged improper payments in Kenya and Angola, including our compliance in those countries with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We do not believe that the amount of the payments in question in Kenya and Angola, or any revenue or operating income related to those payments, are material to our business, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

As a result of our review of these matters, we have implemented, and are continuing to implement, appropriate remedial measures and have voluntarily disclosed the results of our initial investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and are cooperating with those agencies in their review of these matters. As a result of ongoing discussions with the government, we have recorded a charge of $16 million in connection with these matters in the third quarter of 2014. While we currently estimate that the most likely amount of the loss associated with these matters is approximately $16 million, the actual amount of the loss could vary, and the timing of any resolution and payment cannot yet be determined.”

“The Story of the FCPA“

Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell’s recent speech (see here for the prior post) has generated follow-up discussion at the FCPA Blog (here and here), including as to the motivation of Congress in passing the law.

Read the “story” of the FCPA for yourself.  This article weaves together information and events scattered in the FCPA’s voluminous legislative record to tell the FCPA’s story through original voices of actual participants who shaped the law.

Keep it Simple

Over at thebriberyact.com, this post begins:

“Three years ago Bribery Inc. went mad.  Every law firm, accounting firm and uncle Tom Cobley and all got into the anti bribery business. Many detailed anti-bribery policies were sold, placed on corporate intranets and training given. Three years on and many are reviewing their policies and looking back at how they’ve been operating for the last three years.  This is a sensible thing to do. Many anti-bribery policies are extensive. […] We could go on.  And many policies do. And this is where they go wrong. Because the longer they are the less likely it is anyone will read them or even know where to find them.”

Referencing comments made by U.K. Serious Fraud Office Director David Green, the post states:

“The SFO Director said that he doesn’t really like long anti-bribery policies.  Broadly speaking he is concerned that they probably won’t be read or understood by employees. The obvious consequence of the anti-bribery policy not being read is that it is unlikely to be followed. His observation and the concern which underpins it resonates with us.”

It resonates with me as well.  (See this previous post titled “Compliance Fatigue?”).

That is why my global anti-bribery online training course (created in conjunction with Emtrain) keeps things simple. To see how the course engages employees in a business organization and inspires them to spot risk (see this video). To see how the course trains gatekeepers in a business organization to minimize risk (see this video).

Reading Stack

Thomas Fox (FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog) is out with a new book titled “Doing Compliance: Design, Create, and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program.”  (See here for more information).

The latest FCPA Update from Debevoise & Plimpton is here.

Dorsey & Whitney’s Anti-Corruption Digest (Oct. 2014) is here.

Sidley & Austin’s Anti-Corruption Quarterly is here.

*****

A good weekend to all.