Late last Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend, the SEC released one of the more pedestrian FCPA enforcement actions of recent memory.
The action involved Gartner Inc. (a technological research and consulting company) concerning conduct in 2014 and 2015 in South Africa.
To resolve the matter, Gartner agreed to pay approximately $2.5 million (856,764 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $1.6 million civil penalty).
In summary fashion, this administrative order states:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act corporate repeat offender club is getting so large, that it really is not all that exclusive.
In 2013, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”), a Netherlands-based company with shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange, resolved a $4.5 million FCPA enforcement action concerning conduct in Poland. (See here for the prior post).
In resolving the matter, Philips consented to entry of the Order prohibiting future FCPA violations.
Yesterday, the SEC announced that Philips agreed to pay “more than $62 million to resolve charges that it violated the FCPA” with respect to conduct related to its sales of medical diagnostic equipment in China.”
The SEC has announced that Frank’s International N.V., (a Dutch oilfield services provider) now known as Expro Group Holdings N.V., has resolved an approximate $8 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action.
The conduct at issue based focuses on Angola and occurred between 2008 and 2014 (in other words approximately 10-15 years ago).
This administrative order finds in summary fashion:
In the minds of some (including former FCPA enforcement officials – see here), Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement is a convenient cash cow for the U.S. government.
Those who believe this will find new support in the first corporate FCPA enforcement action of 2023.
The basic findings are as follows.
Approximately 12 years ago, Rio Tinto (a metal and mining company with headquarters in Australia and the United Kingdom) hired a French investment banker and close friend of a former senior Guinean government official as a consultant to help the company retain mining rights in Guinea.
Even though both Australia and the United Kingdom have laws and law enforcement resources to adequately address the conduct at issue, the U.S. nevertheless extracted $15 million from Rio Tinto because the company had American Depository Shares that traded on a U.S. exchange.
Turns out, things were not so well at Honeywell.
As highlighted in this prior post, in mid-2019 Honeywell disclosed that it was cooperating with the DOJ/SEC and Brazilian law enforcement investigations relating to its use of third parties in relation to Petrobras (Brazil) business as well as a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior engagement of Unaoil in Algeria.
Yesterday, the DOJ and SEC announced (see here and here) a parallel Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action against Honeywell UOP (a U.S. based subsidiary of Honeywell International) and Honeywell International.
The net $82 million enforcement action involved a DOJ component (net $39.6 million) and an SEC component (net $42.4 million).
