Top Menu

“That Cognizant Was Acting In Furtherance Of Generally Applicable Government Policies Does Not Render All Of Its Actions State Actions”

Judicial Decision

As highlighted in this prior post, in connection with the Cognizant Technology Solutions Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning obtaining various permits in India, in early 2019 the DOJ (and SEC) also charged Gordon Coburn (former President and CFO of the company) and Steven Schwartz (former Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer) with various FCPA offenses.

As highlighted in this prior post, in late 2022 the individuals filed motions claiming that the government outsourced its investigation to Cognizant.

Continue Reading

Former Cognizant Executives Seek Relief – Claiming That The Government Outsourced Its Investigation To Cognizant

outsource

As highlighted in this prior post, in connection with the Cognizant Technology Solutions Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning obtaining various permits in India, in early 2019 the DOJ (and SEC) also charged Gordon Coburn (former President and CFO of the company) and Steven Schwartz (former Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer) with various FCPA offenses.

The case against the former executives remains active and recently Schwartz and Coburn filed motions seeking various forms of relief claiming that the government outsourced its investigation to Cognizant.  Continue Reading

In An FCPA Issue Of First Impression, Judge Rules That Separate E-mails In Furtherance Of The Same Alleged Bribery Scheme Are Separate “Units Of Prosecution”

McNulty

As highlighted in this prior post, in connection with the Cognizant Technology Solutions Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action concerning obtaining various permits in India, the DOJ (and SEC) also charged Gordon Coburn (former President and CFO of the company) and Steven Schwartz (former Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer) with various FCPA offenses.

Coburn and Schwartz are putting the government to its burden of proof and recently U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty (D.N.J. – pictured) denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See here). In doing so, the judge ruled on an FCPA issue of first impression – that being what is the appropriate “unit of prosecution” under the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. As discussed below, the judge concluded that separate e-mails – even if in connection with the same alleged bribery scheme – constitute separate violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Sentenced, scrutiny alert, and payment dispute. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Sentenced

Previous posts here and here highlighted the FCPA and related enforcement action against Frank Chatburn (a dual United States and Ecuadorian citizen) who was criminally charged (and ultimately plead guilty) for conspiring with others for making corrupt payments to PetroEcuador officials in order to obtain and retain contracts for Galileo (described as an Ecuadorian company that provided services in the oil and gas industry) from PetroEcuador.

Continue Reading

SEC’s Case Against Former Cognizant Executives Coburn And Schwartz Stayed Due To Parallel Criminal Case

coburnschwartz

As highlighted in this prior post, in early 2019 former Cognizant executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz were criminally and civilly charged by the DOJ / SEC in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action focused on obtaining planning permits in India. The prior post noted that if the defendants choose to put the DOJ/SEC to its burden of proof, disputed issues will likely focus on corrupt intent, obtain or retain business and the facilitating payments exception.

Coburn and Schwartz are indeed putting the government to its burden of proof and recently a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court – District of New Jersey granted the DOJ’s motion to intervene in the SEC matter and to stay discovery in the civil case while the criminal case proceeds. (See 2019 WL 6013139).

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes