A Case Study In Risk Aversion Or What Happens When Defendants Fight Back
[This post is part of a periodic series regarding “old” FCPA enforcement actions]
Previous posts here and here highlighted the 2001 DOJ/SEC FCPA enforcement action against KPMG Siddharta Siddharta & Harsono (KPMG-SSH) and Sonny Harsono and Baker Hughes regarding alleged improper payments in connection with an Indonesia tax assessment. All of the defendants resolved the enforcement actions without putting the DOJ/SEC to its burden of proof (the risk aversion portion of this post).
However, also in 2001 the SEC charged Eric Mattson (the former CFO of Baker Hughes) and James Harris (the former Controller of Baker Hughes) with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act offenses based on the same substantive allegations. Unlike the other defendants, as highlighted in this post, Mattson and Harris fought back – a process that resulted in a federal court judge dismissing the FCPA charges against them.
The First Time Baker Hughes Resolved An FCPA Enforcement Action
[This post is part of a periodic series regarding “old” FCPA enforcement actions]
As highlighted in this prior post, in 2001 KPMG Siddharta Siddharta & Harsono (KPMG-SSH) and Sonny Harsono resolved a joint DOJ/SEC civil FCPA enforcement regarding alleged improper payments in connection with an Indonesia tax assessment.
As detailed in the prior post, it was a unique FCPA enforcement action at the time (believed to be the first time the DOJ/SEC had ever brought an FCPA action against a professional services firm – i.e. a law firm or accounting firm) and still remains unique in that the DOJ/SEC are believed to have never again brought an FCPA enforcement action against a professional services firm. As further detailed in the prior post, KPMG-SSH was an agent of Baker Hughes and thus it was not surprising that a related FCPA enforcement action against Baker Hughes soon followed.
A Unique FCPA Enforcement Action Then And Still Unique Now
[This post is part of a periodic series regarding “old” FCPA enforcement actions]
As highlighted in this prior post, the DOJ used to civilly enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. One of enforcement actions highlighted, indeed the last time the DOJ used this express statutory provision, was a 2001 enforcement action against KPMG Siddharta Siddharta & Harsono and Sonny Harsono.
It was a unique FCPA enforcement action at the time (believed to be the first time the DOJ/SEC had ever brought an FCPA action against a professional services firm – i.e. a law firm or accounting firm) and still remains unique in that the DOJ/SEC are believed to have never again brought an FCPA enforcement action against a professional services firm.
FCPA Flash Podcast – A Conversation With Sherbir Panag Regarding Compliance In India
The FCPA Flash podcast provides in an audio format the same fresh, candid, and informed commentary about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related topics as readers have come to expect from written posts on FCPA Professor.
This FCPA Flash episode is a conversation with Sherbir Panag (founding partner of the Law Offices of Panag & Babu and manager of the firm’s New Delhi office). In the podcast, Panag: addresses the question of whether doing business in India is possible without paying bribes; talks about the “bribery panic” that often results in India; discusses how companies can best navigate India’s “Licence Raj”; and provides advice for how companies can “Indianise” FCPA compliance programs.
Any lawyer or compliance professional with clients doing business in India would be well-served by listening to the podcast.
Biomet Becomes An FCPA Repeat Offender
For many years, the DOJ has advanced the policy position that DPAs and NPAs “have had a truly transformative effect on particular companies and, more generally, on corporate culture across the globe.” (See here for the prior post). Specifically in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act context, the DOJ has stated that “the companies against which DPAs and NPAs have been brought have often undergone dramatic changes.” (See here for the prior post).
As highlighted here, in March 2012 Biomet resolved an FCPA enforcement action involving alleged conduct in Brazil, Argentina, and China by agreeing to pay approximately $22.8 million ($17.3 million via a DOJ deferred prosecution agreement, and $5.5 million via a settled SEC civil complaint).
Since then, FCPA Professor has chronicled (here, here and here) how Biomet’s DPA was extended, how the DOJ ultimately came to conclude that Biomet had breached its DPA based on subsequent improper conduct, and how an additional FCPA enforcement was expected.
Last week, the DOJ and SEC announced (here and here) the additional FCPA enforcement action against Zimmer Biomet Holdings (in 2015 Zimmer Holdings acquired Biomet) and Biomet. As highlighted below, a portion of the improper conduct involved the same distributor in Brazil that gave rise to the 2012 FCPA enforcement action.