Category: Wal-Mart

The 100th Edition Of The Friday Roundup

Scrutiny alerts and updates, a first, blunt, and quotable.   It’s all here in this – the 100th edition – of the Friday roundup.

[I hope the Friday roundup is a value added end to your work week.  The Friday roundup alone represents several hours of work by highlighting recent FCPA and related news and developments not otherwise covered Monday – Thursday on FCPA Professor.  Ask yourself:  do you get your FCPA from FCPA Professor? If the answer is yes, you can help support this free website here]

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

Wal-Mart

During its third quarter earnings call yesterday, Wal-Mart disclosed $69 million in “FCPA and compliance related expenses” in the quarter.  According to the company “approximately $43.0 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations and approximately $26.0 million is related to our global compliance program and organizational enhancements.”

Doing the math, $69 million in the third quarter is approximately $1.06 million per working day.  As noted here, the figure for Q2 was approximately $1.26 million per working day and as noted here the figure for Q1 was approximately $1.16 million per working day.  For more on Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, see this prior post.

For the fourth quarter, Wal-Mart estimated $75 – $80 million in expenses related to FCPA matters.

JPMorgan

The NY Times returns (here) to the JPMorgan story it first reported in August (see here for the prior post).  The article states:

“To promote its standing in China, JPMorgan Chase turned to a seemingly obscure consulting firm [Fullmark Consultants] run by a 32-year-old executive named Lily Chang.  Ms. Chang’s firm, which received a $75,000-a-month contract from JPMorgan, appeared to have only two employees. And on the surface, Ms. Chang lacked the influence and public name recognition needed to unlock business for the bank. But what was known to JPMorgan executives in Hong Kong, and some executives at other major companies, was that “Lily Chang” was not her real name. It was an alias for Wen Ruchun, the only daughter of Wen Jiabao, who at the time was China’s prime minister, with oversight of the economy and its financial institutions.

[…]

Now, United States authorities are scrutinizing JPMorgan’s ties to Ms. Wen, whose alias was government approved, as part of a wider bribery investigation into whether the bank swapped contracts and jobs for business deals with state-owned Chinese companies, according to the documents and interviews. The bank, which is cooperating with the inquiries and conducting its own internal review, has not been accused of any wrongdoing.  The investigation began with an examination of the bank’s decision to hire the daughter of a Chinese railway official and the son of a former banking regulator who is now the chairman of a state-controlled financial conglomerate.

[…]

Executives at JPMorgan’s headquarters in New York did not appear to be involved in retaining Fullmark, a decision that seemed to have fallen to executives in Hong Kong. And the documents reviewed by The Times do not identify a concrete link between the bank’s decision to hire children of Chinese officials and its ability to secure coveted business deals, a connection that authorities would probably need to demonstrate that the bank violated anti-bribery laws.”

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.

The diversified manufacturing services and products holding company (here) disclosed as follows in a recent quarterly filing:

“In August 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC in connection with the staff’s investigation of a third party. At that time, the Company also learned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a criminal investigation of the third party. In connection with responding to the staff’s subpoena, the Company disclosed to the staff of the SEC that, in November 2007, the third party participated in a payment on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Board of Directors of the Company has formed a special committee to review the Company’s transactions with the third party and to make any recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect thereto. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their investigations of the third party and with the SEC in light of the Company’s disclosure. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of the special committee’s investigation or the length, scope or results of the SEC’s review or the impact, if any, on its results of operations.”

Wynn Resorts

This previous Friday roundup highlighted the company’s disclosure that the SEC has ended its investigation of the company concerning a $135 million donation to the University of Macau.  In this recent filing, Wynn states as follows concerning a related DOJ investigation.

“[The DOJ] has been conducting a criminal investigation into Wynn Resorts’ donation to the University of Macau […]. Wynn Resorts has not received any target letter or subpoena in connection with such an investigation.  Wynn Resorts intends to cooperate fully with the government in response to any inquiry related to the donation to the University of Macau.”

SEC’s First Individual DPA

When the SEC announced in January 2010 (see here for the prior post) a series of measures, including non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements, “to further strengthen its enforcement program by encouraging greater cooperation from individuals and companies in the agency’s investigations and enforcement actions,” I called the development a blow to those who prefer government law enforcement agencies to enforce a law in an open, transparent matter and in the context of an adversary proceeding.  Not that there was much judicial scrutiny of SEC enforcement prior to January 2010 (largely on account of the SEC’s then neither admit nor deny settlement policy), but the new measures, I noted, would lead to even less judicial scrutiny.

Earlier this week, the SEC announced “a [five year] deferred prosecution agreement with a former hedge fund administrator who helped the agency take action against a hedge fund manager who stole investor assets.”  According to the SEC, the DPA – outside the context of the FCPA – is the SEC’s “first with an individual” and the SEC’s release further states:

“Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) encourage individuals and companies to provide the SEC with forthcoming information about misconduct and assist with a subsequent investigation.  In return, the SEC refrains from prosecuting cooperators for their own violations if they comply with certain undertakings.”

Obviously the above statement is an opinion statement, not a factual statement.

As highlighted in this prior post, the FCPA Guidance indicated that the DOJ has in the past used non-public non-prosecution against individuals in the FCPA context.  Despite claims by the DOJ that its FCPA enforcement program is transparent, my attempts to learn more about these secret FCPA NPA’s with individuals was unsuccessful.

Blunt

DOJ FCPA enforcement attorneys have publicly stated that among the many ways they learn of conduct which could implicate the FCPA is by reading the newspaper.

If so, this recent article in the Miami Herald may generate some interest.  In the article concerning the satellite telephone business in Cuba, a “Miami Man” states that “he installs each system in Cuba for $3,500 to $4,200 — cash paid in South Florida, with part of the mark up going to bribes on the island. The costs are usually paid by U.S. relatives of the recipients.”

Quotable

From a recent poll regarding corruption in Africa: “corruption is a national sport every day at the direction of customs officials” (see here).

An extensive interview with U.K. Serious Fraud Director David Green (“DG”) in Fraud Magazine (“FM”) in which he discusses:  corporate criminal liability, facilitation payments, Bribery Act Inc., voluntary disclosure and DPAs.  Relevant excerpts include:

FM: What current changes, if any, to the legal system and or legislation would make the SFO more efficient?

DG: To our effectiveness and our reach, I would very much like the test for corporate criminal liability to be looked at again. As you know, in this country, it is extremely difficult to convict a company of an offence because the prosecution has to show that the controlling minds of the company — somebody at the board level — were complicit in the criminality you are trying to prove.  I think that bar is too high, and is a very unrealistic test — not least because I think anyone will agree that if you’re looking into allegations of corporate misconduct spookily the e-mail trail tends to dry up at a fairly junior level.  Where it can be shown that the company had really profited from the criminality of its employees then I think there is a sound case for expanding the ambit of section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act. Section 7 creates the corporate offence of ‘failing to prevent bribery or corruption by an agent or employee’ with a statutory defence that they took all reasonable precautions.  Now why can’t that be extended to cover fraud and offences of dishonesty so the offence would be failing to prevent fraud or offenses of dishonesty by members of your staff? It seems to me absolutely right that a corporation should have criminal liability for that when it has profited from it. Why should a company which has, in the way I’ve explained, been complicit in criminality just throw a few people over the side and sail bravely on? Why shouldn’t it have its ears clipped and marked as a company that has had dishonest employees and benefitted from it?  Another argument is: Well you’d just be punishing a company for negligence. I would say it would be a pretty high degree of negligence when a company acts in that way and benefits from the dishonesty of its employees.

FM: Doesn’t the Bribery Act prejudice British business in that is a bit too harsh in relation to facilitation payments and hospitality payments?

DG: First of all, I don’t buy this argument that complying with the law is going to hold business back. Secondly, facilitation payments have always been illegal. However, it is a question of the public interest as to whether or not they are prosecuted.  What would be a common facilitation payment? A 20-pound note and a bottle of whisky to some [maritime] pilot to take your ship from somewhere to somewhere else in a single payment; the SFO wouldn’t be interested in that. [Maritime pilots will guide ships into ports for hire.] But if it was a course of conduct over a number of years, then, of course, that becomes not just a very small insignificant little bribe but actually a regular payment over time to ensure that you get that business.

FM: What do you say about those medium to small companies who have ignored the preventative measures required by the Bribery Act?

DG: Well, it’s always difficult, isn’t it? On the one hand, I am very conscious that since the enactment of the act there has grown up a Bribery Act industry in London populated by a lot of American and British lawyers, accountants and so-called experts. I even came across a firm the other day that actually offers certificates to companies saying that they are compliant, and I suppose if the company were to land in court they would try to produce this certificate to say, “We can’t be prosecuted because we’ve got a certificate.”  The effect of this is that these so-called experts have scared the pants off of medium and small enterprises. It is really a question of getting some sensible, reasonably priced legal advice to discern their risk areas and put in place basic safeguards. But the idea that the Serious Fraud Office is going after a ticket to Wimbledon or a bottle of Champagne is, and always has been, utter nonsense.  If, on the other hand, we saw a situation in which the entire board and their spouses of a major corporation were put up in London for a week and then given tickets for the men’s finals at Wimbledon with a couple of banquets before, during and afterwards, then that would be very worrying. Throw in first-class airfare and that would become extremely worrying.  But the key to all this in relation to bribery investigations and whether or not we are interested in them has to do with value and importance but also timing, the motive and the effect of it — was it done at a time when some enormously important decision was going down with a view to influencing it? This is fairly common sense; we use a reasonable approach.

FM: Will companies that self-report escape criminal proceedings?

DG: My predecessor had guidance on self-reporting, in which though it did not say it in so many words, was a very clear implication that if you self-reported as a company you would not be prosecuted, and there would be a civil disposal of what you had done. I disagree with that absolutely and fundamentally as a matter of principle because no prosecutor can ever give guarantees in advance. We have no idea what set of facts are going to come in through the door next. So, we have returned to the old guidance, which has always been there; we will apply the Code for the Crown Prosecutors. In other words, in each situation we would see if there’s enough evidence to prosecute. If there is, we consider if it’s in the public interest to prosecute this company. Now if a company were to come in and say, “Look, we have discovered this misconduct. We have conducted a full investigation; here are the results. We are willing for you to investigate it as you wish. We’ve gotten rid of all the people involved in this, we will hand over any illegal profits obtained as a result of this crime.” In such circumstances, one does struggle to think how it would be in the public interest to prosecute such a company. But it is a question of principle here. If you start — and I feel very strongly about this — if you start blurring the boundaries between what people involved in the criminal justice system do then it’s a dangerous path to follow. Prosecutors shouldn’t be doing deals or making offers in advance and defenders shouldn’t be too familiar with prosecutors. We need to stay where we are and within our own divisions. That’s my view.

FM: Could the deferred prosecution arrangement (DPA) be seen as a type of deal?

DG: Well, I think if you looked at the American model of DPAs you might think it could be described as a deal. We’ve adapted it for use in this country to have judicial involvement and scrutiny from the very beginning. The reason for that is to preserve the principle we have in this country, which they don’t have in the States, that sentencing is a matter for the judge. It’s not a matter for some cozy deal between prosecutor and defence.  If we believe a case is appropriate for a DPA we would go before a judge and say, “Judge, these are the charges which we would be minded to bring against these people. However, we think for these reasons it’s an appropriate case for a DPA. Do you agree?”  Now if the judge says, “No, I don’t I think this is a suitable case for a DPA,” we’ll carry on prosecuting. So, it is a transparent process. Ultimately, if a DPA did go ahead there would be a statement of facts read in court. Nothing would be hushed up.  You can’t really go wrong if you’re transparent. Things go wrong in the criminal justice system if anything appears to be opaque. You lose public confidence and you lose the confidence of the people involved.

Professor Ellen Podgor states, in pertinent part, in this New York Times opinion piece:

“If we intend to punish people, shouldn’t we reasonably expect that they knew their actions were crimes?  […]  The accumulation of laws and rules has made it harder to assure that individuals who are punished understood that they were breaking the law.  When the law is clear, and an individual deliberately transgresses the law, punishment serves an important purpose.  Attributing criminality to business-related activities is not always so easy. The line between criminal activities and acceptable business judgments can be fuzzy. The conduct may not have a long biblical history of being offensive, and there may be no posted signs. […]  In the corporate or financial world, multiple individuals may have a finger in a business decision — and some may be unaware that one has breached the law.  Add to this ambiguity in both the law and the corporate world that business-related decisions are often made by individuals who find themselves placed in a forest of regulations and criminal statutes with varying interpretations that even legal scholars can’t agree upon.  Overcriminalization presents unique issues in the white collar and business arena.  There are thousands of criminal statutes scattered throughout the federal code, and there are thousands of regulations with accompanying criminal penalties. The prosecutor’s toolbox also includes overly broad statutes like RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud and offenses like making false statements.   The bottom line is that the government’s power to indict has few restrictions, and overcriminalization provides federal prosecutors with super powers that they can easily abuse.  Congress’s continuous and haphazard adding of criminal statutes and regulations is making it more difficult to assure that individuals who are punished truly understand that they are breaking the law.”

*****

A good weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

It’s an FCPA world Friday roundup.

According to my tally, in the last approximate 30 days, 11 companies have disclosed new instances of FCPA scrutiny and/or otherwise been the subject of media reports concerning conduct that could implicate the FCPA.  These “new” instances of scrutiny are in addition to several other companies that have recently disclosed expansion of existing FCPA inquiries.

This week’s scrutiny alerts and updates are set forth below.

Agilent Technologies

In its most recent quarterly filing, the company disclosed:

“As part of routine internal audit activities, the Company determined that certain employees of Agilent’s  subsidiaries in China did not comply with the Company’s Standards of Business Conduct and other policies.  Based on those findings, the Company has initiated an internal investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel, relating to certain sales of our products through third party intermediaries in China.  The  internal investigation includes a review of compliance by our employees in China with the requirements of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other applicable laws and regulations.  On September 5, 2013, the Company voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies of this internal investigation.  We will cooperate with any government investigation of this matter.  At this point, we cannot predict or estimate the duration, scope, cost, or result of this matter, or whether the government will commence any legal action, which could result in possible fines and penalties, criminal or civil sanctions, or other consequences.  Accordingly, no provision with respect to these matters has been made in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.  Adverse findings or other negative outcomes from any governmental proceedings could have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements in future periods.”

Deutsche Bank

The company, with shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was the focus of this recent Reuters article.  The article states:

“Japan’s securities market watchdog is investigating whether Deutsche Bank AG employees provided excessive entertainment to Japanese pension fund executives in breach of regulations, sources with knowledge of the matter said.  The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (SESC) found evidence of potential infractions during a regular audit of Deutsche Securities Inc, the German bank’s investment banking arm in Tokyo, said the sources, who spoke on condition they not be identified because the investigation is ongoing. The employees had booked large expenses for entertainment involving pension fund executives, they said. This raised red flags for the regulators because the pension fund executives involved are legally considered public employees, subject to anti-bribery statutes, since they handle part of the national pension scheme.”

Gold Fields Limited

Last week, the South African company with ADR shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was the feature of this lengthy article in the Johannesburg Mail & Guardian newspaper.  In short, the article suggested that:

“Gold Fields has buried a New York law firm’s [Paul Weiss] finding that a R25-million share allocation to ANC chairperson Baleka Mbete constituted bribery. The law firm, commissioned by Gold Fields itself, found that the South African mining house had hugely increased Mbete’s cut in a contentious 2010 empowerment deal in response to an alleged threat by her representative. They recommended that Gold Fields “self report” the matter to the authorities. But the company’s board disregarded the advice – and instead decided not to have the findings written up.”

Earlier this week, Gold Fields issued this statement:

“Gold Fields Limited has been informed that it is the subject of a regulatory investigation in the United States by the US Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the Black Economic Empowerment transaction associated with the granting of the mining license for its South Deep operation. Given the early stage of this investigation, it is not possible to estimate reliably what effect, the outcome this investigation, any regulatory findings and any related developments may have on the Company.”

H-P

As noted in this previous post, H-P has been under FCPA scrutiny since 2010.  In its most recent quarterly filing, the company disclosed:

“Russia GPO and Other FCPA Investigations.    The German Public Prosecutor’s Office (“German PPO”) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that current and former employees of HP engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett-Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP, and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The approximately €35 million transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned the years 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network. The German PPO has issued an indictment of four individuals, including one current and two former HP employees, on charges including bribery, breach of trust and tax evasion. The German PPO has also asked that HP be made an associated party to the case, and, if the German PPO’s request is granted, HP would participate in any portion of the court proceedings that could ultimately bear on the question of whether HP should be subject to potential disgorgement of profits based on the conduct of the indicted current and former employees.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC have been conducting an investigation into the Russia GPO deal and potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The agencies, as well as the Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, are also conducting investigations into potential FCPA violations by an employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o., an indirect subsidiary of HP, in connection with certain public sector transactions in Poland. In addition, the agencies are conducting investigations into certain other public-sector transactions in Russia, Poland, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Mexico, among other countries.

[…]

HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies.”

Wal-Mart

In its most recent quarterly filing, the company disclosed:

“The Audit Committee (the “Audit Committee”) of the Board of Directors of the Company, which is composed solely of independent directors, is conducting an internal investigation into, among other things, alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and other alleged crimes or misconduct in connection with foreign subsidiaries, including Wal-Mart de México, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Walmex”), and whether prior allegations of such violations and/or misconduct were appropriately handled by the Company. The Audit Committee and the Company have engaged outside counsel from a number of law firms and other advisors who are assisting in the on-going investigation of these matters. The Company is also conducting a voluntary global review of its policies, practices and internal controls for FCPA compliance. The Company is engaged in strengthening its global anti-corruption compliance programs through appropriate remedial anti-corruption measures.  In November 2011, the Company voluntarily disclosed that investigative activity to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Since the implementation of the global review and the enhanced anti-corruption compliance programs, the Audit Committee and the Company have identified or been made aware of additional allegations regarding potential violations of the FCPA. When such allegations are reported or identified, the Audit Committee and the Company, together with their third party advisors, conduct inquiries and when warranted based on those inquiries, open investigations. Inquiries or investigations regarding allegations of potential FCPA violations have been commenced in a number of foreign markets where the Company operates, including, but not limited to, Brazil, China and India. The Company has been informed by the DOJ and the SEC that it is also the subject of their respective investigations into possible violations of the FCPA. The Company is cooperating with the investigations by the DOJ and the SEC. A number of federal and local government agencies in Mexico have also initiated investigations of these matters. Walmex is cooperating with the Mexican governmental agencies conducting these investigations. Furthermore, lawsuits relating to the matters under investigation have been filed by several of the Company’s shareholders against it, certain of its current directors, certain of its former directors, certain of its current and former officers and certain of Walmex’s current and former officers. The Company could be exposed to a variety of negative consequences as a result of the matters noted above. There could be one or more enforcement actions in respect of the matters that are the subject of some or all of the on-going government investigations, and such actions, if brought, may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions, cease and desist orders, debarment or other relief, criminal convictions and/or penalties. The shareholder lawsuits may result in judgments against the Company and its current and former directors and officers named in those proceedings. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcome or impact of the government investigations, the shareholder lawsuits, or its own internal investigations and review. In addition, the Company expects to incur costs in responding to requests for information or subpoenas seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with the government investigations, in defending the shareholder lawsuits, and in conducting the review and investigations. These costs will be expensed as incurred. For the three and six months ended July 31, 2013, the Company incurred expenses of approximately $82 million and $155 million respectively, related to these matters. Of these expenses, approximately $48 million and $92 million, respectively, represent costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations and $34 million and $63 million, respectively, relate to global compliance programs and organizational enhancements. These matters may require the involvement of certain members of the Company’s senior management that could impinge on the time they have available to devote to other matters relating to the business. The Company expects that there will be on-going media and governmental interest, including additional news articles from media publications on these matters, which could impact the perception among certain audiences of the Company’s role as a corporate citizen.  The Company’s process of assessing and responding to the governmental investigations and the shareholder lawsuits continues. While the Company believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss from these matters, given the on-going nature and complexity of the review, inquiries and investigations, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters. Although the Company does not presently believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, given the inherent uncertainties in such situations, the Company can provide no assurance that these matters will not be material to its business in the future.”

Further To Wal-Mart’s Pre-Enforcement Action Professional Fees And Expenses

This recent guest post on the FCPA Blog regarding Wal-Mart, specifically its disclosed pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, stated “some FCPA watchers are so indignant by the $300 million figure they have broken it down into FCPA compliance dollars spent per day …”.

That would be me (see here, here and here for prior posts).

And clearly I am not the only one that has taken note of Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action expenses.  Indeed, the FCPA Blog itself took note (here) and called my initial calculation of Wal-Mart’s per day expenses (when it was a mere $604,000 per working day) “eye popping.”

Just yesterday, Reynolds Holding writing on his Breakingviews column -“Lawyers Need to Brake Their Bribe-Case Gravy Train” – stated:

“Lawyers need to pull the brake on their bribery-probe gravy train. Wal-Mart Stores shelled out about $80 million last quarter alone – some $1.25 million per working day – on an internal corruption investigation. […] Wasteful scorched-earth legal tactics inflate costs, while potentially ruinous U.S. penalties make companies scared to skimp. Smarter lawyering could slow the runaway spending.  Scrutiny under the FCPA typically throws multinationals into attorney-hiring overdrive. Having legal eagles delve into corporate innards helps a company look cooperative and thereby win leniency from the government.   […]  There is a better way. A records search at a multinational’s headquarters can quickly reveal how and, generally, where and to whom bribes are being paid, according to veterans of the Siemens case and others. Investigations in just a few countries can then ferret out the details of a global scheme. That’s often enough to reach a reasonable settlement with Uncle Sam.  Yet unnecessarily far-flung and costly probes persist. Not only does the prospect of enormous fees encourage lawyers running an investigation to engage in overkill. A company’s officers also don’t want to be seen to cut corners or get in the attorneys’ way. The usual healthy corporate tendency to police costs carefully doesn’t apply.  For big companies the waste may not show, either. Even a legal bill of, say, $500 million is a drop in the bucket for a company like Wal-Mart with revenue nearly 1,000 times that figure every year. That shouldn’t, however, let lawyers off the hook. Ethics rules require their fees to be reasonable. In bribery cases, that standard is at risk of becoming corrupted.”

The recent guest post on the FCPA Blog went on to state as follows.

“Over roughly the same period covered by the $300 million cost, Wal-Mart’s sales have been about $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000). Those FCPA compliance costs are less than one third of one percent of its sales. And with profits last year of about $17 billion,  Wal-Mart will survive its FCPA spending spree. The world’s largest retailer is finally investing in FCPA compliance in proportion to its size. It’s playing catch up for a decade of what appears to be FCPA neglect.”

Time-out.

The necessity and legitimacy of FCPA pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses ought not be measured by a company’s profitability or overall sales.

Nor is it necessarily appropriate to say that Wal-Mart is finally investing in FCPA compliance in proportion to its size.  The inference is that a large company with large profits ought to spend more on FCPA compliance than a smaller company with smaller profits.

FCPA risk of course is unique to specific industries, and even within the same industry, often to specific companies.  It is not hard to imagine a small company with smaller profits having a higher FCPA risk profile than a large company with larger profits.

Nor is it necessarily appropriate to say that Wal-Mart is “playing catch up for a decade of what appears to be FCPA neglect.”  Presumably this sentence is based on one read of the Wal-Mart New York Times articles.  It appears, even accepting everything in the Times articles as gospel-truth, that Wal-Mart had some corporate governance failures or deficiencies at certain critical points.  For more on this see my article “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement as Seen through Wal-Mart’s Potential Exposure.”

However, as noted in this prior post, let’s not forget other information in the Times articles.

First, according to the Times, Wal-Mart’s subsidiary in Mexico “had taken steps to conceal [the payments] from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.” and Wal-Mart Mexico’s chief auditor altered reports sent to Bentonville discussing various problematic payments.

Second, according to the Times, Wal-Mart’s investigation “was uncovering the kinds of problems and oversights that plague many global corporations.”

Third, according to the Times, Wal-Mart’s internal reviews began in Spring 2011 – long before the Times April 2012 article, when Wal-Mart’s general counsel learned of an FCPA enforcement action against Tyson Foods (like Wal-Mart, a company headquartered in Arkansas).

Finally, the recent guest post on the FCPA Blog states that Wal-Mart’s pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses can “be looked at like accumulated liability for a toxic waste  site: First a determination of the origin, size and places of the contamination, then the costs of the clean up and damages.”

Accepting the analogy, perhaps you’ve heard that Superfund and other environmental clean-up costs frequently turn into boondoggles as well. (See e.g., here).

Friday Roundup

Wal-Mart’s FCPA expenes continue to grow, scrutiny alerts and updates, in the blink of an eye, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Wal-Mart’s FCPA Expenses

As highlighted in this previous post, last FY Wal-Mart’s FCPA professional fees and expenses were approximately $604,000 per working day.  As highlighted in this previous post, for Q1 of this FY Wal-Mart’s FCPA professional fees and expenses were approximately $1.16 million per working day.

Yesterday, in a Q2 earnings conference call, Wal-Mart executives stated:

“Expenses related to FCPA and compliance matters were approximately $82 million, which was above our forecasted range of $65 to $70 million. Approximately $48 million of these expenses represented costs incurred for the ongoing inquiries and investigations. Approximately $34 million is related to global compliance programs and organizational enhancements.”

Doing the math, Wal-Mart’s second quarter FCPA-related professional fees and expenses equal approximately $1.26 million per working day.

In this release, Wal-Mart stated:

“We believe expenses for FCPA matters and compliance programs will be between $75 and $80 million for both the third and fourth quarters.”

The question again ought to be asked – does it really need to cost this much or has FCPA scrutiny turned into a boondoggle for many involved?  For more on this issue, see my article “Big, Bold, and Bizarre: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enters a New Era.

Scrutiny Alerts and Updates

BHP Billiton

The company issued the following release.

Novartis

Add Novartis to the list of pharma companies under scrutiny by Chinese law enforcement for business practices in China.  This Wall Street Journal article states:

“Novartis AG has opened an investigation into possible misconduct at its Chinese operations after a former employee filed a complaint about the Swiss pharmaceutical company’s business practices with labor authorities in China.  Basel-Switzerland based Novartis said … its Business Practices Office, which looks into reported misconduct, is in charge of the investigation. The company said the former employee had asked for 5 million yuan (approximately $800,000) in compensation after resigning but declined to comment further.”

Allied Defense Group

Allied Defense Group (“ADG”) employed Mark Frederick Morales, one of the individuals charged in the failed Africa Sting enforcement action.  As noted in this previous post, in August 2012, the ADG disclosed:

“In February and March, 2012, the DOJ dismissed charges against all individuals indicted in the FCPA sting operation, including the former employee of MECAR USA [an operating business of ADG]. Since this time, the Company’s FCPA counsel has had several discussions with the DOJ and SEC regarding the agencies’ respective inquiries. Based upon these discussions, it appears likely that resolution of these inquiries will involve a payment by the Company to at least one of these government agencies in connection with at least one transaction involving the former employee of Mecar USA. At this point, the amount of this payment is undeterminable.”

ADG recently disclosed:

“In late 2012, the SEC advised that it will not pursue an enforcement action against the Company and in early August 2013, the DOJ advised that it has decided to close its inquiry into this matter.”

In The Blink Of An Eye

As highlighted last week in the Friday Roundup, last week Juniper Networks disclosed:

“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice are conducting investigations into possible violations by the Company of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is cooperating with these agencies regarding these matters. The Company is unable to predict the duration, scope or outcome of these investigations.”

Whether because of three sentences or other information in the company’s quarterly filing, the company’s stock dropped approximately 5.5% last Friday.

72 hours later?

Why of course a securities fraud class action complaint.

This beats the 100 hour threshold highlighted in this previous blink of an eye post.

Reading Stack

A revealing Op-Ed from a member of the Indian Administrative Services in the Times of India which “looks at the games lower bureaucracy plays — sometimes on its own, at other times in collusion with the top — which kill  entrepreneurship and capitalism in India” and which also provide breeding grounds in which harassment bribery flourishes.

An FCPA Mid-Year Update from BakerHostetler.

*****

A good  weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Scrutiny alerts, misleading yet interesting, the flip side, and for the reading stack.  It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Scrutiny Updates

Baxter International

The Wall Street Journal reports that Baxter International “investigated a joint venture in China and discovered expense violations there last year.”  According to the article, Baxter took action after employees of Guangzhou Baxter Qiaoguang Healthcare Co., reported problems internally in July 2012.  According to the article, similar allegations were made in July 2013 that “employees at Baxter’s joint venture paid travel agencies for arranging conferences between 2011 and 2012 for Chinese health officials.”  According to the article, “employees at several hotels identified as the conference sites in the documents said they had no records of the conferences.”

ENI

IntelliNews report here:  “ENI SpA  chief executive Paolo Scaroni will become a target of a major US Foreign Corruption Practices Act investigation by the US Department of Justice and the US Securities Exchange Commission in connection with an Algerian bribery scandal, [Italian] judicial sources said.” Among other things, the article states: “Judicial sources in Milan said they have compelling evidence Scaroni had personal knowledge of the bribe paid by SAIPEM and that SAIPEM is directly controlled by ENI and its management.”

As noted in this previous post, Eni has ADRs registered with the SEC.  In 2010, Eni resolved (see here) an SEC FCPA enforcement action concerning Bonny Island, Nigeria conduct.  In resolving the action, Eni consented to the entry of a court order permanently enjoining it from violating the FCPA’s books and record and internal controls provisions.

Weatherford

The company recently disclosed as follows concerning its long-lasting FCPA scrutiny.

“During the quarter ended June 30, 2013, negotiations related to the oil-for-food and FCPA matters progressed to a point where we recognized a liability for a  loss contingency that we believe is probable and for which a reasonable estimate  can be made.  Certain significant issues remain unresolved in the negotiations and, if these issues are not resolved to the Company’s satisfaction,  negotiations may be discontinued and such unresolved issues may ultimately  impact our ability to reach a negotiated resolution of the matters.  At this  time, the Company estimates that the most likely amount of this loss is $153 million.”

A $153 million settlement would be the eighth largest in FCPA history.

Avon

The company recently disclosed as follows concerning its long-lasting FCPA scrutiny.

“As previously reported in August 2012, we are in discussions with the SEC and the DOJ regarding resolving the government investigations. Our factual presentations as part of these discussions are substantially complete. In June 2013, we made an offer of settlement to the DOJ and the SEC that, among other terms, included payment of monetary penalties of approximately $12. The DOJ and the SEC have rejected the terms of our offer. Although we expect that the DOJ and the SEC will make a counterproposal to our offer, they have not yet done so. Our discussions with the DOJ and the SEC are ongoing.

There can be no assurance that a settlement with the SEC and the DOJ will be reached or, if a settlement is reached, the timing of any such settlement or the terms of any such settlement. We expect any such settlement will include civil and/or criminal fines and penalties, and may also include non-monetary remedies, such as oversight requirements and additional remediation and compliance requirements. We may be required to incur significant future costs to comply with the non-monetary terms of any settlement with the SEC and the DOJ. Under certain circumstances, we may also be required to advance significant professional fees and expenses to certain current and former Company employees in connection with these matters. Until any settlement or other resolution of these matters, we expect to continue to incur costs, primarily professional fees and expenses, which may be significant, in connection with the government investigations.

At this point we are unable to predict the developments in, outcome of, and economic and other consequences of the government investigations or their impact on our earnings, cash flows, liquidity, financial condition and ongoing business.  However, based on our most recent discussions with the DOJ and the SEC, the Company believes that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss upon settlement that is higher than the offer made by the Company of approximately $12, which was accrued by the Company as of June 30, 2013. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any additional loss above the amount accrued to date; however it is reasonably possible that such additional loss will be material.”

Owens-Illinois

The beverage company recently disclosed as follows.

“The Company conducted an internal investigation into conduct in certain of its overseas operations that may have violated the anti-bribery provisions of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions, the Company’s own internal policies, and various local laws. In October 2012, the Company voluntarily disclosed these matters to the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company intends to cooperate with any investigation by U.S. authorities. On July 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from the DOJ indicating that it presently did not intend to take any enforcement action and is closing its inquiry into the matter. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of any investigation by the SEC or whether the SEC will commence any legal action.”

AB InBev

The beverage company recently disclosed as follows.

“As previously disclosed, we have been informed by the SEC that it is conducting an investigation into our affiliates in India, including our non-consolidated Indian joint venture, InBev India Int’l Private Ltd, and whether certain relationships of agents and employees were compliant with the FCPA. We continue to cooperate in this investigation and have been informed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that it is also conducting a similar investigation. Our investigation into the conduct in question is ongoing and we are cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ.”

Misleading Yet Interesting

Perhaps one reason for why there appears to much confusion about the FCPA and FCPA enforcement is due to the vast amount of misleading information in the public domain concerning the FCPA.

This recent article in the Economic Times of India concerning Wal-Mart is an instructive example.

Stating that the FCPA is a “law that prohibits American companies and their foreign subsidiaries from bribing officials” is not a completely accurate statement concerning the scope of the law.  Stating that “the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced by the Department of Justice and the accounting provisions by the Securities and Exchange Commission” is not completely accurate either.  The SEC can also bring civil actions for FCPA anti-bribery violations and the DOJ can also bring criminal actions for wilful violations of the accounting provisions.

“In 2008, for example, Siemens paid a fine of $1.6 billion, the largest ever for an FCPA violation.”  This is a false statement.  While the Siemens enforcement action is indeed the largest in FCPA history in terms of fine and penalty amount, the amount was $800 million.”

Citing a source that says Wal-Mart’s FCPA scrutiny could result in an enforcement action “between $4.5 billion and $9 billion” is outrageous beyond belief.

Despite its deficiencies, the article highlights an interesting tension between conducting a thorough internal investigation and the treatment of employees.  The article states:

“The long shadow of Bentonville, channelled by the permanent gaze of investigators, is causing angst among the Indian staff of Walmart. A company official quoted earlier says the army of investigators, who enjoy sweeping powers to seize documents and equipment of the staff, are seen by many employees as intrusive and as an extra-judicial authority in the office. For example, the investigators scan even the couriers sent out by the staff. The official quoted above says the objective to ensure FCPA compliance is causing even minor situations to snowball.”

[…]

“In another case, Richard Leonard, a British citizen and general manager for asset protection in India, was on a store visit to Ludhiana, that too with Asia head Price, when he received a frantic call from a colleague that KPMG executives were trying to seize his desktop computer and break open his drawer. He immediately called other colleagues, asking them to stop the investigators from taking possession of his workstation. On his return to the office, Leonard dashed off e-mails to his bosses, including Walmart’s global head Mike Duke, on how employees like him have lost respect in the office and they are being portrayed as “criminals” by independent auditors.”

The article also states:

“Walmart is asking all India employees who have left or been suspended to sign a three-page ‘consultancy and cooperation agreement’, ostensibly with the FCPA fallout in mind. The agreement essentially requires them to make themselves available to provide any information or explanation of materials or documents requested by Walmart or any government authority. “The manner in which lawyers and audit team are going about doing their business, I have started believing that I have done something wrong,” says an employee.”

The Flip Side

This Forbes columnist asks – in the context of GlaxoSmithKline –  “is big pharma addicted to fraud?”

The question reminded me of the spot-on statement previously profiled here.  In a Law360 interview, Stephen Jonas (here), a partner in the Boston office of WilmerHale, was asked “what aspects of law in your practice are in need of reform, and why?”  He stated:

“One area greatly in need of reform, in my view, is the investigation of alleged health care fraud. This is an area in which the government regularly secures enormous settlements, starting in the tens of millions of dollars, and now exponentially expanding to the billions of dollars. Virtually every pharmaceutical company has now been subjected to one or more of these investigations and the results are predictable — enormous monetary contributions to the federal government. I find it hard to believe that wrongdoing is so rampant in this industry that every company has at least several hundred million dollars worth of it. The more likely answer is that these settlements often have far more to do with the leverage the government enjoys than the merits of what the company did or didn’t do. In order to stay in business, pharmaceutical and medical device companies must be able to sell products that can be paid for by Medicaid and Medicare. But a conviction for a health care offense would result in exclusion of the companies from federal health insurance and essentially a death sentence for their business. So they cannot afford to fight even the most debatable of charges. One of the results is that novel legal theories and sketchy evidence will never be tested in a court of law and negotiated settlements (under threat of exclusion) serve as “precedent” for the next case. That is a system badly in need of reform.”

Related to GSK, see here for my recent TV interview with LinkAsia.

Reading Stack

The always informative Miller & Chevalier FCPA Summer Review 2013.  As noted in the review “while investigation activity levels appear robust, the overall pace of  enforcement in 2013, in terms of resolved dispositions, remains at its lowest  level since 2006.”  This is correct, although difficult to square with a recent article from Compliance Week titled “FCPA Enforcement on the Rise Once Again.”  This is why an FCPA lingua franca is so important.  (See prior posts here and here).  Among other things, the Miller & Chevalier review contains useful charts including the nationality of companies under FCPA investigation and the countries implicated most frequently in FCPA enforcement actions.

Press coverage of BSG Resources and Beny Steinmetz (the wealthy Israeli for whom BSG Resources is named) regarding its business in Guinea continues.  (See this recent article from the U.K. Guardian).

An informative read from John Rupp (Covington) on how corporate interests and individual interests in a bribery investigation can collide and what corporate counsel can do to prevent this dynamic.

An interesting read from Trace Blog on how bribery schemes fall apart.  The post states:

“The reality is that many bribery schemes simply self-implode.  Think of it this way, once a bribe is paid, a corresponding debt is created to all who are involved in the scheme:  to the business partner who provides the funds; to the third party “consultant” who launders them through false pretense; to the accountant who cooks the books; to the bagman who delivers the payment; to each and every role player, big or small, who helps to bring about the bribe. At the time, loyalties may seem obvious: each co-conspirator will usually have a clear self-interest in keeping the bribery scheme hidden.  But as situations change, so too do incentives, and in business there are few guarantees as unsure as the honor among thieves.  […] Think of all the bribery stories that have come to light simply by their own accord.”

*****

A good weekend to all.