The Latest Disclosures
A Friday focus on disclosures. The SEC asks Oracle – what about that FCPA issue, the SEC takes an interest in Libya, and yet another voluntary disclosure.
Oracle
As noted in this previous post, in September 2011 Joe Palazzolo and Samuel Rubenfeld broke the story in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Probes Oracle Dealings,” that “U.S. authorities are investigating whether Oracle Corp., one of the world’s largest software companies by sales, violated federal antibribery laws in its dealings abroad …”. According to the report, “agents in the FBI’s Washington field office and fraud prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division are handling a criminal investigation, which has been underway for at least a year.” Palazzolo and Rubenfeld also report that the SEC is also investigating for possible civil violations. According to the report, “the agencies are examining whether Oracle employees or agents acting on the company’s behalf made improper payments in Africa in order to land sales of database and applications software.”
Since then, Oracle’s SEC filings have been silent as to any FCPA inquiry. The SEC wants to know why as demonstrated by this February Q&A between the SEC Division of Corporation Finance and Oracle filed by the company.
SEC: “We also note various news articles indicating that the company has been subject to investigations regarding possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations for more than a year. Please tell us how you considered the guidance in paragraphs 50-3 through 50-5 of ASC 450-20-50 in evaluating the need to disclose these pending matters.”
Oracle Response: “We make a quarterly assessment of legal matters, including the matters referenced in the Staff’s inquiry above, to determine how those matters should be treated in the context of the accounting and disclosure requirements of paragraphs 50-3 through 50-5 of ASC 450-20-50. For those matters referenced above, we evaluated whether it was reasonably possible that a loss or a loss exceeding amounts already recognized may be incurred. We determined that the estimated ranges of additional losses for those matters referenced above, if any, either individually or in the aggregate, would not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Consequently, we believe our disclosures comply with the aforementioned guidance.”
ASC 450-20-50 you ask? ASC 450 is the former FASB 5 standard regarding gain and loss contingencies (i.e. when a company should record, disclose or not disclose certain contingencies).
Libya
Two foreign oil companies with ADRs traded on U.S. exchanges recently disclosed SEC scrutiny concerning conduct in Libya.
In this recent SEC filing, French oil company Total S.A. stated as follows.
“In June 2011, the SEC issued to certain oil companies – including, among others, TOTAL – a formal request for information related to their operations in Libya. TOTAL is cooperating with this non-public investigation.”
See here for a recent prior post concerning Total’s FCPA scrutiny in Iran.
In this recent SEC filing, Italian oil company Eni SpA stated as follows.
“On June 10, 2011 Eni received by the US SEC a formal judicial request of collection and presentation of documents (subpoena) related to Eni’ s activity in Libya from 2008 to 2011. The subpoena is related to an ongoing investigation without further clarifications nor specific alleged violations in connection to “certain illicit payments to Libyan officials” possibly violating the US Foreign Corruption Practice Act. At the end of December 2011, Eni received a request for the collection of further documentation aiming at integrating the subpoena previously received. Eni is fully collaborating with the US SEC.”
For more on the recent Libya disclosures, see here from Samuel Rubenfeld at Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents.
As highlighted in this prior post, in July 2010, Eni was a party in the DOJ/SEC’s Bonny Island Nigeria focused FCPA enforcement action which resulted in $365 million in combined fines and penalties.
Another Voluntary Disclosure
SL Industries (here – a New Jersey based designer, manufacturer and marketer of power electronics, motion control, power protection, and other related products) recently disclosed (here) as follows.
“The Company is conducting an investigation to determine whether certain employees of SL Xianghe Power Electronics Corporation, SL Shanghai Power Electronics Corporation and SL Shanghai International Trading Corporation, three of the Company’s indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries incorporated and operating exclusively in China, may have improperly provided gifts and entertainment to government officials. Based upon the initial investigation, which is ongoing, the preliminary estimate of the amounts of such gifts and entertainment does not appear to be material to the Company’s financial statements. There can be no assurance, however, that after further inquiry the actual amounts will not be in excess of what is currently estimated. Such estimate does not take into account the costs to the Company of the investigation or any other additional costs. The Company’s investigation includes determining whether there were any violations of laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Consequently, on March 29, 2012, the Company’s outside counsel contacted the DOJ and the SEC voluntarily to disclose that the Company was conducting an internal investigation, and agreed to cooperate fully and update the DOJ and SEC periodically on further developments. The Company has retained outside counsel and forensic accountants to assist in its investigation of this matter. Because the investigation is ongoing, the Company cannot predict at this time whether any regulatory action may be taken or any other adverse consequences may result from this matter.”
According to my tally, the new disclosures discussed above means that in the last six weeks, seven companies have newly disclosed FCPA scrutiny. See here for the prior post “The Sun Rose, a Dog Barked, and a Company Disclosed FCPA Scrutiny.” If SEC filings are your ideal form of pleasure reading, you can hardly wait to see what next week holds.
A good weekend to all.
Friday Roundup
A week (so far) without a new disclosure, quotable, and from the archives. It is all here in the Friday roundup.
Is It Possible?
Granted the week is not yet over, but thus far this week there has not been a new FCPA disclosure. The past three weeks, I have (somewhat tongue in cheek) noted – what seems like – new FCPA related disclosures every week. See here and here for prior posts.
While not a new FCPA disclosure, Total S.A. did indicate as follows in a recent Form 6-K filing.
“In 2003, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) followed by the Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a formal order directing an investigation in connection with the pursuit of business in Iran, by certain oil companies including, among others, TOTAL. The inquiry concerns an agreement concluded by the Company with a consultant concerning a gas field in Iran and aims to verify whether certain payments made under this agreement would have benefited Iranian officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the Company’s accounting obligations. Investigations are still pending and the Company is cooperating with the SEC and the DoJ. In 2010, the Company opened talks with U.S. authorities, without any acknowledgement of facts, to consider an out-of-court settlement as it is often the case in this kind of proceeding. Late in 2011, the SEC and the DoJ proposed to TOTAL out-of-court settlements that would close their inquiries, in exchange for TOTAL’s committing to a number of obligations and paying fines. As TOTAL was unable to agree to several substantial elements of the proposal, the Company is continuing discussions with the U.S. authorities. The Company is free not to accept an out-of-court settlement solution, in which case it would be exposed to the risk of prosecution in the United States.”
Quotable
A collection of recent statements by DOJ officials concerning its recent trial setbacks and the future of FCPA enforcement.
See here from Reuters quoting Charles Duross (DOJ FCPA Unit Chief) as saying. “I know there is a lot of commentary out there about what this portends for the FCPA program, the use of certain law enforcement techniques. I would caution everybody not to draw too much from that. In terms of pursuing cases moving forward, I don’t think a lot is going to change.”
See here from Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents quoting Nathaniel Edmonds (DOJ) as saying – “the Department of Justice is going to continue to fight corruption, we’re committed to it, and we’re in it for the long haul.”
See here from the Blog of Legal Times quoting Edmonds as saying – FCPA violations are “not a regulatory offense. It’s a criminal violation. You cannot assume it’s a cost of doing business. People go to jail…it’s not just a regulatory fine.” The Blog of Legal Times also quotes Kara Brockmeyer (SEC FCPA Unit Chief) as saying “you can never stamp out someone who wants to pay a bribe somewhere … but if a company has strong internal controls, they can find the problem and fix it quickly.”
Meanwhile, Brockmeyer’s predecessor, Cheryl Scarboro (who left the SEC for private practice last summer – see here for the prior post) said in this recent Q&A with Trustlaw as follows. “There hasn’t been much litigation in this area and so if a particular area of a statute is open to interpretation, then typically the DOJ or the SEC will interpret it themselves and those are in the settled context.” After referencing the recent foreign official challenges, Scarboro states as follows. “But I think that it is correct (to say) that there is very little guidance as it relates to decided court cases in this area and that it leaves certain key areas open to interpretation.” Scarboro also recently co-authored a Law360 article (here) titled “Mounting Pressure for FCPA Reform.”
From the Archives
It was inappropriate when issued on January 26, 2010. Looking back it perhaps foreshadowed future difficulties. It is the FBI’s press release in the Africa Sting case (see here). It states that the “ruse played out with all the intrigue of a spy novel” and then on January 18, 2010 “we arrested them.” The release closed as follows. “You never know, that individual willing to take a bribe may really be an undercover FBI agent.” For the rest of the story, see this recent story in the Washington Post.