Top Menu

Second Circuit – “There Is No Private Right Of Action Under The Antibribery Provisions Of The FCPA”

In a September 18th decision, the Second Circuit concluded in Republic of Iraq v. ABB et al that “there is no private right of action under the antibribery provisions of the FCPA.”

The FCPA issue was a minor component of the Second Circuit’s decision in the long-running civil RICO case in which Iraq sought recovery from a long list of defendants for their “alleged conspiracy with Iraq’s then-president Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s ministries to corrupt and plunder the Oil-for-Food Program, an international humanitarian program administered by the United Nations during the final years of Hussein’s rule.”  As to the primary RICO claim, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the claim on the grounds that, among other things, the plaintiff was in pari delicto with defendants.

Notwithstanding the fact that previous FCPA enforcement actions concerning the Oil for Food Program were largely books and records and internal controls cases only because the alleged bribe payments went to the government, not a particular foreign official as required under the anti-bribery provisions, and notwithstanding the fact that Iraq was a unique plaintiff to say the least, it nevertheless brought FCPA claims against the defendants on the theory that the FCPA allowed for a private right of action.

As to this issue, the Second Circuit stated – in full – as follows.

“The Amended Complaint alleged that the surcharges and kickbacks paid by the Vendor and Oil Purchasing Defendants violated the antibribery provisions of the FCPA. The Republic contends that the district court should have recognized an implied private right of action for violations of those provisions despite a consistent line of cases holding to the contrary. The Republic is particularly critical of Lamb v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990) (“Lamb”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 (1991), the leading case declining to recognize such a cause of action. The Republic argues that Lamb erred in its analysis of the legislative history of the FCPA and that that history suggests that the reason Congress did not expressly provide for a private right of action was to avoid creating a “negative inference” that would dissuade judicial recognition of implied private rights of action under other provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to which the FCPA was an amendment. We are unpersuaded.

“[P]rivate rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001) (“Sandoval”). A federal statute may create a private right of action either expressly or, more rarely, by implication. In considering whether a statute confers an implied private right of action, “[t]he judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.” Id. To discern Congress’s intent, “we look first to the text and structure of the statute.” Lindsay v. Association of Professional Flight Attendants, 581 F.3d 47, 52 (2d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 11 130 S. Ct. 3513 (2010). To “illuminate” this analysis, id. at 52 n.3, we also consider factors enumerated in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), which include the following:

First, is the plaintiff one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, . . . –that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? . . . . Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? Id. at 78 (emphasis in Cort v. Ash) (internal quotation marks omitted). In our analysis, we are mindful that “the Supreme Court has come to view the implication of private remedies in regulatory statutes with increasing disfavor.” Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P. v. Gotham Partners, L.P., 286 F.3d 613, 618 (2d Cir. 2002).

The antibribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit certain entities and persons from, inter alia, corruptly making payments to foreign officials for the purpose of influencing official action in order to obtain business. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a). The text of the statute contains no explicit provision for a private right of action, although it does provide for civil and criminal penalties, see id. §§ 78dd-2(g), 78dd-3(e), 78ff(c), and permits the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, see id. §§ 78dd-2(d), 78dd-3(d). Because “[t]he express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others,” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 290, the structure of the statute, by focusing on public enforcement, tends to indicate the absence of a private remedy.

The Cort v. Ash factors also do not support recognition of a private right. The statute’s prohibitions focus on the regulated entities; the FCPA contains no language expressing solicitude for those who might be victimized by acts of bribery, or for any particular class of persons. “Statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons.” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 289 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Nor does the legislative history of the FCPA demonstrate an intention on the part of Congress to create a private right of action. As discussed in Lamb, 915 F.2d at 1029, a bill introduced by Senator Church in the 94th Congress included an express right of action for competitors of those who bribed foreign officials, see S. 3379, 94th Cong. § 10, 122 Cong. Rec. 12,605, 12,607 (1976); that provision, however, was deleted by a committee of the Senate, see S. Rep. No. 94-1031, at 13 (1976).

In the 95th Congress, which finally enacted the FCPA, a committee of the House of Representatives, in reporting out a bill that did not provide expressly for a private right of action, made a statement that the House “Committee intends that the courts shall recognize a private cause of action based on this legislation . . . on behalf of persons who suffer injury as a result of prohibited corporate bribery,” H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 10 (1977). We have three main problems with the Republic’s reliance on this statement, and other aspects of the FCPA’s legislative history, as justification for judicial implication of a private right of action in its favor

First, the House committee’s statement was not repeated (and no endorsement of its substance was in any way suggested) in the reports of either the Senate committee considering the FCPA or the conference committee that reconciled the views of the House and Senate to produce the language of the FCPA as it was ultimately enacted. See S. Rep. No. 95-114 (1977); H.R. Rep. 95-831 (1977). Indeed, in the debate on the conference committee report, one conferee stated that the question of whether “courts will recognize [an] implied private right of action . . . . was not considered in the Senate or during the conference, and thus [it] cannot be said that any intent is expressed at all on this issue.” 123 Cong. Rec. 38,601, 38,602 (1977) (statement of Sen. Tower) (emphasis added).

Second, although the legislative history contains additional references to the desirability of a private right of action, they do not provide any clear indication of congressional intent to create one. See generally Siegel, The Implication Doctrine and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 1085, 1105-12 (1979) (canvassing the legislative history in detail and finding “no conclusive evidence of congressional intent to grant private actions”).

Third, we note that this case illustrates the wisdom of Lamb, which avoids the question of what class of parties the FCPA was designed to protect. Although we agree that the statute was “primarily designed to protect the integrity of American foreign policy and domestic markets,” Lamb, 915 F.3d at 1029, one might argue that it is principally the foreign governments whose processes might be corrupted. The Republic’s claim highlights the obvious problem with the latter concern here: The foreign government supposedly to be “protect[ed]” by the FCPA was the entity that demanded the bribes in the first place.

Finally, we note that although it has been nearly a quarter of a century since Lamb was decided, and although Congress has more recently amended the FCPA, see International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-366, 112 Stat. 3302 (1998), Congress has not chosen to override Lamb. We conclude that there is no private right of action under the antibribery provisions of the FCPA and that the district court did not err in dismissing the Republic’s FCPA claims.”

As indicated in the Second Circuit’s decision, there have been previous appellate court decisions addressing whether the FCPA has a private right of action.  As highlighted in this prior post, the Sixth Circuit addressed the issue in Lamb v. Phillip Morris Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990).  The primary reason articulated by the court for declining a private right of action was something that never happened – at least until 2012 when the DOJ/SEC issued FCPA Guidance.  The Sixth Circuit stated:

“Recognition of the plaintiffs’ proposed private right of action, in our view, would directly contravene the carefully tailored FCPA scheme presently in place. Congress recently expanded the Attorney General’s responsibilities to include facilitating compliance with the FCPA. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(e), 78dd-2(f). Specifically, the Attorney General must ‘establish a procedure to provide responses to specific inquiries’ by issuers of securities and other domestic concerns regarding ‘conformance of their conduct with the Department of Justice’s [FCPA] enforcement policy….’ 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(e)(1), 78dd-2(f)(1). Moreover, the Attorney General must furnish ‘timely guidance concerning the Department of Justice’s [FCPA] enforcement policy … to potential exporters and small businesses that are unable to obtain specialized counsel on issues pertaining to [FCPA] provisions.’ 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(e)(4), 78dd-2(f)(4). Because this legislative action clearly evinces a preference for compliance in lieu of prosecution, the introduction of private plaintiffs interested solely in post-violation enforcement, rather than pre-violation compliance, most assuredly would hinder congressional efforts to protect companies and their employees concerned about FCPA liability.”

Prior to Lamb, the Fifth Circuit addressed a private right of action, albeit in dicta, in McLean v. Int’l Harvester Co., 817 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1987).  The court stated:  “we find it inappropriate to imply a private cause of action from the statute. The statute on its face shows no congressional intent to create a private action. Moreover, no legislative history exists referring to such an intent.” This last sentence is obviously false given the legislative history discussed in the recent Second Circuit opinion.

In short, the three appellate court decisions that address an FCPA private right of action are either: (1) based on a false premise (McLean); (2) based on a false premise at the time (Lamb); or (3) involved a unique and odd plaintiff.

An FCPA private right of action does warrant further consideration.

At the very least, this much should be undisputed:  if there was an FCPA private right of action, there would be substantially more case law of precedent concerning the FCPA’s provisions than currently exists and that, I submit, would be a good thing.

Contrary to the Second Circuit’s statement, courts have inferred private rights of action in several provisions of the ’34 Act (see e.g., J.I. Case v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964)) and the FCPA is after all part of the ’34 Act. Moreover, several of the Cort v. Ash factors for implying a private of right would seem to be met in the FCPA context.  Among the reasons Congress passed the FCPA was to level the playing field given how the discovered foreign corporate payments distorted free and fair competition.  Moreover,  the SEC itself has said on numerous occasions that FCPA enforcement is central to its mission of investor protection.  An FCPA private right of action would further seem to be consistent with the underlying premise of the FCPA which is to reduce foreign bribery.  Finally, “regulation of bribery directed at foreign officials cannot be characterized as a matter traditionally relegated to state control,” as even the Lamb court recognized.

As highlighted in prior posts here, here and here, for several years U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) consistently introduced the “Foreign Business Bribery Prohibition Act” which would have provided for a limited private right of action under the FCPA.  The bills never made it out of committee.


AG Holder On Corruption

Last week Attorney General Eric Holder was in Slovenia to speak at The Balkans Justice Ministerial. In his speech (here) AG Holder focused on the “global fight against corruption.”

Holder stated as follows.

“Corruption strikes hardest at the most vulnerable among us, siphoning scarce resources away from those most in need. It advances the selfish desires of a dishonest few over the best interests of those who work hard and obey the law. In countries rich and poor, large and small – corruption erodes trust in government and private institutions alike. It undermines confidence in the fairness of free and open markets. It stifles competition and repels foreign investment. It hinders progress, and it breeds contempt for the rule of law.”

“And yet corruption continues to flourish.”

Holder stressed that “all nations struggle against corruption” and that the U.S “is no exception.”

Holder called on all nations “to ratify – and to fully implement – the UN Convention Against Corruption.” (See here).

As to asset recovery, Holder repeated his call first made in Qatar (see here for the prior post) that asset recovery (i.e. ensuring that corrupt officials do not retain illicit proceeds) “isn’t just a global necessity – it’s a moral imperative.”

U.K. Oil for Food Sentence

With its approximately twenty corporate enforcement actions connected to the U.N. Iraq Oil for Food Program, the U.S. is clearly the leader in collecting corporate fines connected to this scandal plagued, defunct program.

The U.K. however has clearly emerged as the leader in holding individuals (not just corporations) to account for illegal behavior in connection with the program.

Last week, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced (here) that Mark Jessop admitted to breaking U.N. sanctions during the Oil For Food Program by making illegal payments to Saddam Hussein’s government. The release states that Jessop was sentenced to 24 weeks’ imprisonment. According to the release, Jessop was ordered to pay £150,000 to the Development Fund for Iraq and pay prosecution costs of £25,000. Jessop sold medical goods to Iraq, initially as an employee of a British surgical instruments company, but later through his own companies – JJ Bureau Ltd and Opthalmedex Ltd, of which he was sole director.

For other recent U.K. Oil for Food sentences, see here for the prior post.

Resource Extraction Disclosures

Remember Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act? (See here for the prior post).

The Huffington Post reports (here) that the April 15th deadline for the SEC to issue final implementing regulations has passed. According to the SEC (see here) the new target date for final implementing rules is between August and December.

I guess this is what happens when an ill-conceived, poorly drafted law is inserted into a massive piece of legislation as a miscellaneous provision at the last moment without any meaningful debate or analysis.

World Bank News

Last week, the World Bank released (here) a “Declaration of Agreed Principles for Effective Global Enforcement to Counter Corruption.” See here for the press release.

The release also notes that the World Bank’s Integrity office’s (“INT”) FY10 results include “117 investigations in FY10, with 45 debarments of firms and individuals for engaging in wrongdoing.” For INT’s FY2010 Annual Report, see here.

Johnson & Johnson Enforcement Action Focuses on Health Care Providers As “Foreign Officials”

That was quite the 72-hour period for FCPA enforcement last week. On Wednesday, it was JGC Corporation of Japan ($218.8 million in criminal fines). On Thursday, it was Comverse Technologies ($2.8 million in combined DOJ and SEC fines, penalties, and disgorgement). On Friday, it was Johnson & Johnson ($70 million in combined DOJ and SEC fines, penalties and disgorgement – plus approximately $7.9 million in a related U.K. Serious Fraud Office civil recovery).

This post analyzes the Johnson & Johnson enforcement action. Separate posts regarding the Comverse and JGC Corp. enforcement actions will follow later this week.


Johnson & Johnson (“J&J), a global pharmaceutical, consumer product, and medical device company, resolved enforcement actions focused on business conduct in Greece, Poland, Romania. The enforcement actions also resolved an investigation of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary companies in the United Nations Oil for Food Program in Iraq.

The J&J enforcement action involved both a DOJ and SEC component. Total settlement amount was $70 million ($21.4 million criminal fine via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement; $48.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest via a SEC settled complaint).

This post summarizes the DOJ, SEC and SFO enforcement actions.


The DOJ enforcement action involved a criminal information (here) against DePuy Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J and a global manufacturer and supplier of orthopedic medical devices) resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement (here).

Criminal Information

The background section of the information begins as follows. “Greece has a national healthcare system wherein most Greek hospitals are publicly owned and operated. Health care providers who work at publicly-owned hospitals (“HCPs”) are government employees, providing health care services in their official capacities. Therefore, such HCPs in Greece are “foreign officials” as that term is defined in the FCPA.”

The conduct at issue focuses on Depuy International. In 1998, J&J acquired DePuy, including its subsidiary Deputy International (a U.K. company).

According to the information, between 1998 through 2006, DePuy and others conspired to “secure lucrative business with hospitals in the Greek public health care system by making and promising to make corrupt payments of money and things of value to publicly-employed Greek HCPs.”

The information alleges that “DePuy, its executives, employees, and subsidiaries agreed to sell products to Company X [an agent and distributor for DePuy and its subsidiaries in Greece until 2001 when it was acquired by DePuy and named DePuy Medec and later renamed DePuy Hellas] at a 35% discount, then paid 35% of sales by Company X to an off-shore account of Company Y [based in the Isle of Man and a consultant for DePuy International in Greece until 1999] in order to provide off-the-books funds to Agent A [a Greek national who was the beneficial owners of both Company X and Y] for the payment of cash incentives and other things of value to publicly-employed Greek HCPs to induce the purchase of DePuy products, while concealing the payments.”

The information further alleges that “DePuy, its executives, employees, and subsidiaries agreed to pay Agent A and Agent B [a Greek national who acted as a consultant to DePuy International and DePuy Hellas] a percentage of the value of sales of DePuy products in Greece in order to provide funds to Agent A and Agent B for the payment of cash incentives and other things of value to publicly-employed Greek HCPs to induce the purchase of DePuy products, while concealing the payments.”

The information further alleges that between 2002 and 2006 “approximately £500,000 was withdrawn by DePuy Hellas MD [a Greek National who was an employee of Company X until it was acquired by J&J when she became the Managing Director of DePuy Hellas] and others and used to cover payments owed to HCPs by the agents but not yet paid.”

The information charges as follows. “In total, from 1998 to 2006, defendant DePuy, DePuy International, and their related subsidiaries and employees, authorized the payment, directly or indirectly, of approximately $16.4 million in cash incentives to publicly-employed Greek HCPs to induce the purchase of DePuy products. In order to conceal the payments, DePuy Hellas and DePuy International falsely recorded the payments in their books and records as “commissions.””

As to a U.S. nexus, the information describes the following: certain phone calls made to Executive B (a U.S. citizen and officer and senior executive of DePuy) in Indiana to discuss the Company X acquisition and due diligence on Greek Agent A; e-mails sent to Executive B in Indiana regarding Agent A or Greek business in general; e-mails Executive A (a British citizen who was an officer and senior executive in charge of DePuy at the time it was purchased by J&J and who retained that position until 1999 when he became a senior executive at J&J retaining control of DePuy and its related operating companies) sent or received in New Jersey regarding Agent A.

Based on the above allegations, the information charges: (i) a conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records provisions; and (ii) a substantive FCPA anti-bribery violation.


The DOJ’s charges against DePuy were resolved via a deferred prosecution agreement (dated January 14, 2011) between the DOJ and J&J, its subsidiaries, and its operating companies “relating to illegal conduct committed by certain J&J operating companies and subsidiaries.” In addition to DePuy Inc., other operating companies named are Cilag AG International and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.

Pursuant to the DPA, J&J admitted, accepted and acknowledged “that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, employees, and agents, and wholly-owned subsidiaries and operating companies” as set forth in a Statement of Facts attached to the DPA.

The term of the DPA is three years and it states that the DOJ entered into the agreement based on the following factors.

(a) J&J voluntarily and timely disclosed the majority of the misconduct described in the Information and Statement of Facts [Note – the Iraq Oil for Food conduct was not voluntarily disclosed];

(b) J&J conducted a thorough internal investigation of that misconduct;

(c) J&J reported all of its findings to the Department;

(d) J&J cooperated fully with the Department’s investigation of this matter;

(e) J&J has undertaken substantial remedial measures as contemplated by [the DPA];

(f) J&J has agreed to continue to cooperate with the Department in any investigation of the conduct of J&J and its directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, subsidiaries, contractors, and subcontractors relating to violations of the FCPA and related statutes;

(g) J&J has cooperated and agreed to continue to cooperate with the SEC and, at the direction of the Department, foreign authorities investigating the conduct of J&J and its directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, subsidiaries, contractors, and subcontractors relating to corrupt payments;

(h) J&J has cooperated and agreed to continue to cooperate with the
Department in the Department’s investigations of other companies and individuals in connection with business practices overseas in various markets;

“(i) J&J has also agreed to resolve related cases being investigated by the SEC and the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office (the “SFO”); and

(j) Were the Department to initiate a prosecution of J&J or one of its operating companies and obtain a conviction, instead of entering into this Agreement to defer prosecution, J&J could be subject to exclusion from participation in federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a).

With respect to the corporate compliance reporting obligations imposed on J&J by the DPA, the agreement states as follows.

(i) J&J has already engaged in significant remediation of the misconduct described in the Statement of Facts and reviewed and improved its compliance program and implementation thereof;

(ii) J&J conducted an extensive, global review of all of its operations to determine if there were problems elsewhere and has reported on any areas of concerns to the Department and the SEC;

(iii) J&J has and will undertake enhanced compliance obligations
described in [the DPA];

(iv) J&J’s cooperation during this investigation and its substantial assistance in investigations of others has been extraordinary; and

(v) J&J had a pre-existing compliance and ethics program that was effective and the majority of problematic operations globally resulted from insufficient implementation of the J&J compliance and ethics program in acquired companies.”

As stated in the DPA, the fine range for the above described conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was $28.5 million to $57 million. Pursuant to the DPA, J&J agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $21.4 million (25% below the minimum amount suggested by the guidelines). The DPA states as follows. “J&J and the Department agree that this fine is appropriate given J&J’s voluntary and thorough disclosure of the misconduct at issue, the nature and extent of J&J’s cooperation in this matter, penalties related to the same conduct in the United Kingdom and Greece, J&J’s cooperation in the Department’s investigation of other companies, and J&J’s extraordinary remediation.”

Pursuant to the DPA, J&J agreed to self-report to the DOJ “periodically, at no less than six-month intervals” during the term of the DPA “regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance measures” described in the DPA.

As is standard in FCPA DPAs, J&J agreed not to make any public statement “contradicting the acceptance of responsibility” by J&J as set forth in the DPA.

The Statement of Facts attached to the DPA include, in addition to the Greece conduct described above, conduct relating to Poland, Romania and in connection with the U.N. Oil for Food Program in Iraq.


As to Poland, the DPA states, in summary fashion as follows.

“Poland has a national healthcare system. Most Polish hospitals are owned and operated by the government and most Polish HCPs [health care providers] are government employees providing health care services in their official capacities. Therefore, most HCPs in Poland are “foreign officials” as defined by the FCPA.”

“Polish hospitals purchase their medical products through a tender process, whereby suppliers of medical products compete for business by submitting bids to tender committees. Each tender committee may be associated with one or more hospitals.”

“In general, the tender committees evaluate the competitive bids and select the winning supplier for each purchase. Because most Polish hospitals are government owned, the tender committees effectively determine, on behalf of the government, from whom the government will purchase medical products.”

“J&J Poland [a wholly owned subsidiary of J&J] made payments and provided things of value to publicly-employed Polish HCPs, in the form of “civil contracts,” travel sponsorships, and donations of cash and equipment, to corruptly influence the decisions of HCPs on tender committees to purchase medical products from J&J Poland.”

As to civil contracts, the DPA states as follows.

“J&J Poland engaged in professional services contracts with publicly-employed Polish HCPs, known as “civil contracts.” The contracts were purportedly for professional services including lecturing, leading workshops, and conducting clinical trials.”

“J&J Poland did not require that its sales representatives provide proof that the work, for which payment had been made, was actually ever performed.”

“From January 2000 until June 2006, J&J Poland awarded civil contracts to publicly-employed Polish HCPs to corruptly influence them, in their official capacities as members of tender committees, in order to induce those HCPs to select, or favorably influence the selection of, J&J Poland as the winning supplier in tender processes.”

As to travel, the DPA states as follows.

“J&J Poland sponsored some publicly-employed Polish HCPs to attend conferences in order to corruptly influence them, in their official capacities as members of tender committees, in order to induce the HCPs to select, or favorably influence the selection of, J&J Poland as the winning supplier in tender processes.”

As to “Total Improper Payments in Poland,” the DPA states as follows.

“In total, from in or around 2000 to in or around 2007, J&J Poland and its employees authorized the payment, directly or indirectly, of approximately $775,000 in improper payments, including direct payments and travel, to publicly-employed Polish HCPs to induce the purchase of J&J products.”


As to Romania, the DPA states as follows.

“The national healthcare system in Romania is almost entirely state-run. The healthcare system is funded by the National Health Care Insurance Fund (“CNAS”), to which employers and employees make mandatory contributions. Most Romanian hospitals are owned and operated by the government and most HCPs in Romania are government employees. Therefore, most HCPs in Romania are “foreign officials” as defined by the FCPA.”

“From in or around 2005 through in or around 2008, J&J Romania [a wholly owned subsidary] employees made arrangements with J&J Romania distributors for the distributors, on behalf of J&J Romania, to provide cash payments and gifts to publicly-employed Romanian HCPs in exchange for prescribing certain pharmaceuticals manufactured by J&J subsidiaries and operating companies.”

As to “Total Improper Payments in Romania,” the DPA states as follows.

“In total, from in or around July 2005 to in or around mid-2008, J&J Romania and its employees authorized the payment, directly or indirectly, of approximately $140,000 in incentives to publicly-employed Romanian HCPs to induce the purchase of pharmaceuticals manufactured by J&J subsidiaries and operating companies.”

Oil for Food Program

As to the U.N. Oil for Food Program, the DPA states as follows.

“Between in or around December 2000 and in or around March 2003, Janssen [a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J headquarted in Belgium] and Cilag [a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J headquartered in Switzerland] were awarded 18 contracts for the sale of pharmaceuticals to the Iraqi Ministry of Health State Company for Marketing Drugs and Medical Appliances (“Kimadia”) under the [Oil for Food Program], with a total contract value of approximately $9.9 million, which generated approximately $6.1 million in profits. Janssen and Cilag secured these contracts through the payment of approximately $857,387 in kickbacks to the government of Iraq.”

“The kickbacks were paid to the government of Iraq through JC-Lebanon Agent [a Lebanese citizen who was an agent for both Janssen and Cilag in Iraq]. The kickbacks were concealed from the United Nations by inflating Janssen and Cilag’s contract prices by 10%.”

The DPA concludes with a section titled “Books and Records” that states as follows.

“In order to conceal the payments to the Greek, Polish, and Romanian HCPs on the books and records of J&J and its subsidiaries, the payments were misrepresented as, among other things, “commissions,” “civil contracts,” “travel,” “donations,” and “discounts.””

“In order to conceal the kickback payments made to the Iraqi government through JC-Lebanon Agent for contracts under the OFFP on the books and records of Janssen and Cilag, the payments were misrepresented as “commissions.””

“At the end of J&J’s fiscal year from in or around 1998 to in or around 2007, the books and records of DePuy International, DePuy Hellas, J&J Poland, J&J Romania, Janssen, and Cilag, including those containing false characterizations of kickback and bribe payments given to the Iraqi government and Greek, Polish, and Romanian officials, were incorporated into the books and records of J&J for purposes of preparing J&J’s year-end financial statements, which were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

The DOJ’s release (here) states as follows.

“Johnson & Johnson has admitted that its subsidiaries, employees and agents paid bribes to publicly-employed health care providers in Greece, Poland and Romania, and that kickbacks were paid on behalf of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary companies to the former government of Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food program. Johnson & Johnson, however, has also cooperated extensively with the government and, as a result, has played an important role in identifying improper practices in the life sciences industry. As [the DPA] reflects, we are committed to holding corporations accountable for bribing foreign officials while, at the same time, giving meaningful credit to companies that self-report and cooperate with our investigations.” “The agreement recognizes J&J’s timely voluntary disclosure, and thorough and wide-reaching self-investigation of the underlying conduct; the extraordinary cooperation provided by the company to the department, the SEC and multiple foreign enforcement authorities, including significant assistance in the industry-wide investigation; and the extensive remedial efforts and compliance improvements undertaken by the company. In addition, J&J received a reduction in its criminal fine as a result of its cooperation in the ongoing investigation of other companies and individuals, as outlined in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. J&J’s fine was also reduced in light of its anticipated resolution in the United Kingdom. Due to J&J’s pre-existing compliance and ethics programs, extensive remediation, and improvement of its compliance systems and internal controls, as well as the enhanced compliance undertakings included in the agreement, J&J was not required to retain a corporate monitor, but it must report to the department on implementation of its remediation and enhanced compliance efforts every six months for the duration of the agreement.”


The SEC’s civil complaint (here) is based on the same core set of facts contained in the above DPA and alleges, in summary, as follows.

“This matter concerns violations of the Foreign Conupt Practices Act by J&J as a result of the acts of its subsidiaries to obtain business for J&J’s medical device and pharmaceutical segments.”

“Since at least 1998 and continuing to early 2006, J&J’s subsidiaries, employees and agents paid bribes to public doctors in Greece who selected J&J surgical implants for their patients. Further, J&J’s subsidiaries and agents paid bribes to doctors
and public hospital administrators in Poland who awarded tenders to J&J from 2000 to 2006. J&J’s subsidiaries and agents also paid bribes to public doctors in Romania to prescribe J&J pharmaceutical products from 2002 to 2007. Finally, J&J’s subsidiaries and agent paid kickbacks to Iraq in order to obtain contracts under the United Nations Oil for Food Program (“Program”) from 2000 to 2003.”

As to Greece, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“One of J&J’s product lines is surgical implants such as artificial knees, hips and other products that surgeons implant into patients. Surgical implants are a lucrative, but competitive business. In many countries, orthopedic surgeons control which implants they use.”

“In 1998, J&J acquired another medical device company, DePuy Inc., a NYSE company. A top DePuy executive then went on to become a top J&J executive in the United States in J&J’s medical device and diagnostics business (“Executive A”). At the time of the acquisition, DePuy was engaged in a widespread bribery scheme in Greece to sell its implants. Executive A and DPI executives knowingly continued that scheme. From 1998 to 2006, J&J earned $24,258,072 in profits on sales obtained through bribery.”

The SEC complaint alleges that “J&J’s internal audit group discovered the payments to Greek doctors in early 2006 after receiving a whistleblower complaint.” According to the complaint, “the issue of payments to surgeons had been previously raised in an anonymous 2003 letter to a different internal audit team concerning a related J&J subsidiary in Greece … however, that team concentrated their investigation on allegations about a possible conflict ofinterest by local management and J&J did not fully investigate the alleged payments to doctors.”

As to Poland, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“Employees of … a J&J subsidiary, bribed publicly-employed doctors and hospital administrators to obtain business. [Subsidiary] executives running three business lines oversaw the creation of sham contracts and travel documents and also the creation of slush funds as a means to funnel bribe payments to doctors and
administrators. From 2000 to 2006, J&J earned $4,348,000 in profit from its sales through the bribery.”

“The bribery appears to have stopped when Polish prosecutors began to investigate payments to doctors.”

As to travel issues, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“[Subsidiary] also paid for public doctors and hospital administrators to travel to medical conventions in Poland and abroad in order to influence tender committee decisions in their favor. Sponsored doctors were taken on trips in exchange for influencing the doctors’ decisions to purchase J&J’s medical products or to award hospital tenders to J&J. Some of the trips were to the United States for conferences. Some of the trips were to tourists areas in Europe, and some included spouses and family members to what amounted to vacations.”

As to Romania, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“Employees of … a J&J subsidiary, bribed publicly-employed doctors and pharmacists to prescribe J&J products that the company was actively promoting. The employees worked with [the subsidiary’s] local distributors to deliver cash to publicly-employed doctors who ordered J&J drugs for their patients. [The subsidiary] also provided travel to certain doctors who agreed to prescribe J&J products. From 2000 to 2007, J&J earned $3,515,500 in profit from its sales through the bribery.”

As to Iraq Oil for Food conduct, the SEC complaint alleges as follows.

“J&J participated in the Program through two of its subsidiaries, Cilag AG International and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (collectively “Janssen-Cilag”). During the program, Janssen-Cilag sold pharmaceuticals to an arm of the Iraqi Ministry of Health known as Kimadia. Janssen-Cilag conducted business with Kimadia in Iraq through a Lebanese agent (the “Agent”). The Agent’s primary contact with the J&J companies was an area director at Janssen-Cilag’s office in Lebanon.”

“In total, secret kickback payments of approximately $857,387 were made in connection with nineteen Oil for Food contracts. The payments were made through the Agent to Iraqi controlled accounts in order to avoid detection by the U.N. The fee was effectively a bribe paid to the Iraqi regime, which were disguised on J&J’s books and records by mischaracterizing the bribes as legitimate commissions.”

“In order to generate funds to pay the bribes and to conceal those payments, Janssen-Cilag and its agent inflated the price of the contracts by at least ten percent before submitting them to the U.N. for approval. J&J’s total profits on the contracts were $6,106,255.”

Under the heading “Anti-Bribery Violations” the complaint alleges as follows.

“J&J, through its subsidiaries and agents, knowingly allowed its employees and third parties to pay Greek and Polish public doctors and public hospital administrators for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.”

“Executive A, a U.S. resident and a senior executive at J&J, approved the arrangements with the Greek Agent in Greece. Executive A and DPI executives knew that the Greek Agent was bribing Greek doctors. In addition, Polish doctors were bribed to use J&J products in return for trips. Use of the mails and interstate commerce was also used to facilitate the bribery schemes in both Greece and Poland.”

Under the hearing “Failure to Maintain Its Books and Records” the complaint alleges as follows.

“J&J’s subsidiaries made numerous illicit payments for the purpose of obtaining contracts in Iraq, Romania, Greece, and Poland. J&J’s books and records did not reflect the true nature of those payments. For example, they did not record that a portion of its payments to the Greek and Iraqi agents constituted reimbursements for bribes, and they did not record the true terms of the civil contract payments to Polish doctors. Efforts were made to obscure the purpose of trips to the United States and abroad. Certain J&J subsidiaries created false contracts, invoices, and other documents to conceal the true business arrangement it had with its consultants and distributors to pay bribes. False travel documents were created, and petty cash was used to pay bribes. United Nations contracts were also falsified.”

Under the heading “Failure to Maintain Adequate Internal Controls,” the complaint alleges as follows.

“J&J failed to implement internal controls to detect or prevent bribery. The conduct was widespread in various markets, Greece, Poland, Romania, and Iraq. The conduct involved employees and managers of all levels. False documents were routinely created to conceal the bribery in each country.”

“Rather than cease the bribery that was happening at DePuy prior to J&J’s acquisition, J&J through its subsidiaries, employees and agents allowed the bribery to continue. They created sham businesses and entered into contracts that were merely
conduits to allow the bribery to flourish. They failed to conduct due diligence on the Greek Distributor. The Company also paid its consultant outside of Greece to avoid detection of bribery. The Company had two different J&J corporate entities make
payments to the Greek Agent to conceal the amount of money that was being funneled to
doctors as bribes.”

“[Polish subsidiary] entered into fake civil contracts with Polish doctors and J&J also created false travel arrangements in Poland and Romania to create slush funds.”

“Cilag and Janssen paid bribes to Iraq despite the fact that trade sanctions were in place against doing business in Iraq. Cilag and Janssen falsified their contracts with the United Nations to conceal the kickbacks being paid to Iraq.”

Based on the above allegations, the SEC charged J&J with FCPA anti-bribery violations and FCPA books and records and internal control violations.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, J&J agreed to an injunction prohibiting future FCPA violations and agreed to pay $38,227,826 in disgorgement and $10,438,490 in prejudgment interest.

The SEC’s release (here) contains the following statement from Robert Kuzami (Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement): “The message in this and the SEC’s other FCPA cases is plain – any competitive advantage gained through corruption is a mirage. J&J chose profit margins over compliance with the law by acquiring a private company for the purpose of paying bribes, and using sham contracts, off-shore companies, and slush funds to cover its tracks.” In the release, Cheryl Scarboro (Chief of the SEC Enforcement Divisions FCPA Unit) stated as follows. “Bribes to public doctors can have a detrimental effect on the public health care systems that potentially pay more for products procured through greed and corruption.”

The SEC release states as follows.

“J&J voluntarily disclosed some of the violations by its employees and conducted a thorough internal investigation to determine the scope of the bribery and other violations, including proactive investigations in more than a dozen countries by both its internal auditors and outside counsel. J&J’s internal investigation and its ongoing compliance programs were essential in gathering facts regarding the full extent of J&J’s FCPA violations.”


On the same day as the above U.S. enforcement actions, the U.K. SFO announced (here) a Civil Recovery Order against DePuy International Limited “in which DePuy International Limited will pay £4.829 million [approximately $7.9 million], plus prosecution costs, in recognition of unlawful conduct relating to the sale of orthopaedic products in Greece between 1998 and 2006.”

According to the SFO release, the SFO “launched an investigation into the activities of DePuy International Limited in October 2007 following a referral from the DOJ.” Richard Alderman, Director of the SFO, stated as follows. “When Johnson & Johnson reported the DePuy corruption, the DOJ informed the SFO of issues within our jurisdiction. We worked with the DOJ to find a solution that served both the interests of justice and the company’s desire to put illegal activity behind it and move on. I believe the order approved […] will illustrate to other companies how the SFO works closely with organisations across the world in enforcing the highest ethical standards, but is willing to engage and listen to companies that come to us with problems and help them find solutions.”

The SFO release further states as follows. “On the facts of this case, criminal sanction of the Greek conduct has been achieved by the conclusion of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with DePuy International Limited’s parent company and the DOJ. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has concluded that a prosecution was therefore prevented in this jurisdiction by the principles of double jeopardy. The underlying purpose of the rule against double jeopardy is to stop a defendant from being prosecuted twice for the same offence in different jurisdictions. The DOJ Deferred Prosecution Agreement has the legal character of a formally concluded prosecution and punishes the same conduct in Greece that had formed the basis of the Serious Fraud Office investigation. […] Consequently the Serious Fraud office is satisfied that the most appropriate sanction is a Civil Recovery Order, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

As highlighted in this prior post, in April 2010, former DePuy executive Robert Dougall pleaded guilty to conspiring with others “to make corrupt payments and/or give other inducements” to “medical professionals within the Greek state health care system” contrary to Section 1 of the UK Prevention of Corruption Act of 1906.


Eric Dubelier (Reed Smith – see here – a former DOJ enforcement attorney) represented J&J.

J&J’s press release (here) notes as follows. “In 2007, Johnson & Johnson voluntarily disclosed to the DOJ and the SEC that subsidiaries outside the United States were believed to have made improper payments in connection with the sale of medical devices. In the course of comprehensive compliance efforts and reports into the Company, similar issues in additional markets and businesses were identified and brought to the attention of the agencies.” William Weldon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of J&J stated as follows. “More than four years ago, we went to the government to report improper payments and have taken full responsibility for these actions. We are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable conduct that led to these violations. We have undertaken significant changes since then to improve our compliance efforts, and we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure this does not occur again. I know that these actions are not representative of Johnson & Johnson employees around the world who do what is honest and right every day, in the conduct of our business and in service to patients and customers worldwide. We will continue to demonstrate that Johnson & Johnson is a company that embraces responsible corporate behavior.”

SFO Flexing It Muscle Even Without the Bribery Act

In previous statements (see here for instance) U.K. officials have said that it would be wrong to assume that the U.K. was ignoring bribery issues prior to passage of the Bribery Act.

Case(s) in point – the recent enforcement actions announced by the Serious Fraud Office against MK Kellogg Ltd. and Mabey & Johnson directors.

MK Kellogg Ltd.

Yesterday, the SFO announced (here) that M.W. Kellogg Limited (“MKWL”) has been ordered to pay “just over £7 million [approximately $11.2 million] in recognition of sums it is due to receive which were generated through the criminal activity of third parties.”

This SFO enforcement action has been expected for some time, as noted in this previous post from October 2009.

MKWL was the entity that originally formed the TSKJ consortium the focus of the Bonny Island bribery scandal. See this post for current enforcement statistics as to KBR/Halliburton, Technip, and Snamprogetti / ENI.

MKWL is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of KBR and as noted in this previous post as well as KBR’s release (here) Halliburton has indemnification obligations to KBR in connection with the SFO enforcement action of “55% of such penalties, which is KBR’s beneficial ownership interest in MWKL.”

According to the SFO release, “the SFO recognized that MKWL took no part in the criminal activity that generated the funds” but that the “funds due to MKWL are share dividends payable from profits and revenues generated by contracts obtained through bribery and corruption undertaken by MWKL’s parent company and others.” The SFO release notes that “MWKL was used by the parent company and was not a willing participant in the corruption.”

As noted in the SFO release, the court order against MKWL was pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. What is the Proceeds of Crime Act? See this piece from John Rupp (Covington & Burling).

Richard Alderman, the Director of the SFO, stated in the release: “our goal is to prevent bribery and corruption or remove any of the benefits generated by such activities – this case demonstrates the range of tools we are prepared to use.”

Mabey & Johnson Directors

In July 2009, the SFO brought an enforcement action against Mabey & Johnson Ltd. (a U.K. company that designs and manufacturers steel bridges). The conduct at issue involved allegations (that the company voluntarily disclosed) that it sought to influence decision-makers in public contracts in Jamaica and Ghana between 1993 and 2001. The prosecution also involved breaches of United Nations sanctions in connection with the Iraq Oil for Food program.

It was the first ever prosecution against a U.K. company for overseas corruption. See here and here for the prior post.

On February 10th, the SFO announced (here) that “two former directors … of Mabey & Johnson Ltd. [Charles Forsyth and David Mabey] have been found guilty of inflating the contract price for the supply of steel bridges in order to provide kickbacks to the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.”

According to the release, at the time of the offense, Forsyth was the Managing Director of Mabey & Johnson and Mabey was the Sales Director. The release notes that Richard Gledhill, a Sales Manager for contracts in Iraq, previously pleaded guilty. According to the release, all individuals are to be sentenced on February 23rd.

The U.S. has prosecuted numerous companies in connection with Iraqi Oil-For-Food fraud. See here for such allegations in the ABB matter, here for such allegations in the Innospec matter, here for such allegations in the General Electric matter.

However, these prosecutions have generally been corporate only prosecutions with few related enforcement actions against individuals.

In just its single Mabey & Johnson prosecution, the SFO would appear to have prosecuted more individuals than the U.S. has in its approximately 15 Iraqi Oil for Food corporate enforcement actions combined.

First Enforcement Action of 2011 Involves a Former Executive Officer

In March 2010, Innospec Inc. was charged on both sides of the Atlantic in a joint DOJ / SEC / U.K. Serious Fraud Office enforcement action. (See here and here).

In August 2010, the SEC charged David Turner, the Business Director of Innospec’s TEL Group, and Ousama Naaman, the company’s agent, for their role in the bribery scheme. (See here). Naaman was also charged by the DOJ, pleaded guilty, and awaits sentencing. (See here).

Yesterday, in the first FCPA enforcement action of the year, the SEC charged Paul Jennings, Innospec’s former CFO and CEO, for his involvement in the bribery scheme. (See here). Jennings resigned from Innospec in March 2009 (see here).

Jennings name is now included on a rather short list of high-ranking executives of public companies (or affiliates) recently charged by the SEC in an FCPA enforcement action. In July 2009, Douglas Faggioli (the current President and CEO) and Craig Huff (the former CFO) of Nature’s Sunshine Products were charged (see here); in September 2008, Albert Jackson Stanley (the former CEO of Kellogg Brown & Root Inc.) was charged (see here); in December 2007, Robert Philip (the former Chairman/CEO of Schnitzer Steel was charged (see here); and in September 2007, Monty Fu (the former Chairman of Syncor International Corp. was charged (see here).

The facts of the underlying bribery scheme in the Jennings enforcement action are detailed in the prior posts linked above and this post details the allegations in the SEC’s complaint (here) regarding Jennings knowledge and involvement in the scheme.

In summary fashion, the complaint alleges as follows:

“This action arises from widespread bribery of foreign officials by Innospec, Inc., some of which occurred and was approved by Paul W. Jennings beginning in mid to late 2004 during his tenure as Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and continuing after he became Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) in 2005.”

“Beginning in mid to late 2004, Jennings, who held various senior roles at Innospec, including CFO and CEO, actively participated in the bribery schemes in Iraq and Indonesia.”

“Jennings violated [the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions] by engaging in widespread bribery of government officials in Iraq during the post-Oil for Food period in order to sell TEL to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil (“MoO”) and by engaging in bribery of Indonesian officials to sell TEL to state owned oil companies in Indonesia. Jennings aided and abetted Innospec’s violations of [the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions] by substantially assisting in Innospec’s bribery of Iraqi and Indonesian government officials.”

“Innospec, a U.S. issuer, made use of U.S. mails and interstate commerce to carry out the scheme, and Jennings, a dual U.S. and U.K. national was complicit in the scheme. Jennings both sent and received e-mails to and from the United States to carry out the scheme. He also used interstate commerce and the mails as part of the scheme. Jennings obtained $116,092 in bonuses that were tied to the success of the TEL sales, which were procured through bribery.”

“Jennings also violated Section13(b)(5)of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder by falsifying documents as part of the bribery scheme. Jennings also violated Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2 by making false statements to accountants and violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 by signing false personal certifications required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that were attached to annual and quarterly Innospec public filings.”

“Jennings also aided and abetted Innospec’s violations of [the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions] by substantially assisting in Innospec’s failure to maintain internal controls to detect and prevent bribery of officials in Iraq and Indonesia, and the improper recording of the illicit payments in Innospec’s books and records.”

According to the SEC, “beginning in 2005, Jennings, along with other members of Innospec’s management, approved bribery payments to officials at the Iraqi Ministry of Oil in order to sell TEL to Iraq. The complaint alleges that Innospec, with the approval of Jennings, used Naaman as its agent in Iraq to make improper payments and the complaint alleges that Jennings was copied on certain e-mails between Naaman and Turner discussing the bribery scheme. The complaint further alleges that Jennings approved certain payments to Naaman to facilitate the bribery scheme including certain payments Jennings approved “while in the United States.” Many of the SEC’s allegations as to the Iraqi conduct are phrased as Jennings had “general knowledge” or that Jennings was “generally aware” of the conduct at issue.

As to Indonesian payments, the complaint alleges that “Jennings became aware of and approved the improper payments to Indonesian government officials in order to win contracts for the sale of TEL to state owned oil and gas companies. Among other allegations, the complaint alleges that “in December 2004, Jennings and Executive B [the CEO of Innospec from 1998 to April 2005] discussed Innospec’s bribery scheme in Iraq and Indonesia on a flight from Denver to New York” and that “while Indonesian Agent was in the United States during the holidays, various e-mails were sent to and from the United States that discussed Jennings’ and Turner’s continued efforts to support Indonesian Agent’s payment of bribes on Innospec’s behalf.” The SEC also alleges that the “bribery scheme” was also discussed “during Jennings’ performance review in January 2005.”

As to Jennings false certifications, the complaint alleges as follows.

“From 2004 to February 2009, Jennings signed annual certifications that were provided to auditors where he falsely stated that he complied with Innospec’s Code of Ethics incorporating the company’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act policy, and that he was unaware of any violations of the Code of Ethics by anyone else. During that time frame, Jennings actively participated in bribery of Iraqi and Indonesian officials as described above. Jennings also signed annual and quarterly personal certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in which Jennings made false certifications concerning the company’s books and records and internal controls. Jennings also signed false management certifications to Innospec’s auditors indicating that the books and records were accurate and that Innospec had appropriate internal controls.”

As noted in the SEC release, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Jennings agreed to disgorge $116,092 plus prejudgment interest of $12,945 and pay a civil penalty of $100,000. The SEC stated that the figures take into consideration Jennings’s cooperation in this matter.

In the release, Cheryl Scarboro (Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit) stated, “we will vigorously hold accountable those who approve such bribery and who sign false SOX certifications and other documents to cover up the wrongdoing.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes