Scrutiny alerts and updates, asset recovery, Fokker DPA appeal, Holder to private practice, and for the reading stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Scrutiny Alerts and Updates
Former Yara Executives
Reuters reports :
“A Norwegian court sentenced four former top executives at Yara, the world’s biggest nitrate fertilizer maker, to prison on Tuesday for paying bribes in Libya and India, in one of Norway’s biggest corruption scandals. Prosecutors had accused the men of paying around $8 million in bribes to officials in Indiaand Libya – including to the family of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s oil minister and the family of a financial adviser in India’s Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers – for the right to establish joint ventures. Former CEO Thorleif Enger got the longest sentence of three years. His lawyer said he would appeal the sentence. Former chief legal officer Kendrick Wallace was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison, while former head of upstream activities Tor Holba and former deputy CEO Daniel Clauw were both given two-year jail terms years, court documents showed.”
For more on the underlying Libya investigations, see here .
Cerberus Capital Management
Cerberus Capital Management has been the subject of several recent media articles (see here  and here  for instance) concerning its purchase of a portfolio of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) in 2014 in Northern Ireland. According to reports:
“Northern Irish politicians have called for an investigation after a politican in Dublin alleged that Belfast law firm Tughans had £7m in an account, ‘reportedly earmarked for a Northern Ireland politician’.”
Tughans was engaged as local counsel by Brown Rudnick in connection with its representation of Cerberus. In response to the scrutiny, Brown Rudnick released this  statement.
The DOJ recently filed  this civil forfeiture complaint seeking “£22 million in British pounds (approximately $34 million at current exchange rates) that represent the value of 4,000,000 founders’ shares in Griffiths Energy International Inc. (“Griffiths Energy”), and that are traceable to, and involved in the laundering of, bribe payments made to Chadian diplomats …”.
According to the complaint, Griffiths Energy gave Mahamoud Adam Bechir (“Bechir”), Chad’s ambassador to the United States and Canada from approximately 2004 to 2012, and others “valuable company shares in exchange for Bechir exercising his official influence over the award to the company of lucrative oil development rights in Chad.”
The recent action is the second DOJ civil action filed in connection with the Griffiths Energy matter. (See here ).
See here  for the prior post regarding the underlying Canadian enforcement action against Griffiths Energy.
As highlighted in this  Bloomberg article:
“The Justice Department is seeking to seize $300 million claimed to be the proceeds of an international bribery conspiracy involving two Russian phone companies, as the U.S. joins a group of European nations in a telecom corruption probe. The U.S. claims VimpelCom Ltd., part-owned by Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman, and Mobile TeleSystems OJSC used a web of shell companies and phony consulting contracts to funnel bribes to a close relative of Uzbekistan’s president, Islam Karimov, in exchange for access to that country’s telecommunications market. The assets sought by the U.S., in a complaint filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, are held in Bank of New York Mellon Corp. in Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium. VimpelCom said in March 2014 that its Amsterdam headquarters had been raided by Dutch prosecutors and that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission demanded documents as part of the probe into its business.”
Fokker DPA Appeal
This  previous post concerned the pending D.C. Circuit appeal of the DOJ – Fokker Services deferred prosecution agreement. Recently David Debruin (Jenner & Block), the court appointed amicus, filed this  brief.
Regarding the following issue: “whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act […] which provides for the exclusion of a period of delay pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement “with the approval of the court.”, the brief states in pertinent part:
“If the Court reaches the merits, it should hold that the District Court had the authority to consider the substantive fairness of the DPA. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2), a DPA requires “approval of the court.” The plain text of this provision grants a district court the discretion to consider the substantive fairness of a DPA before approving it. The parties argue that a district court may reject a DPA only if it concludes that the parties are using the DPA as a pretext for a continuance, but that artificial restriction on judges’ discretion finds no basis in § 3161(h)(2). The legislative history, structure, and purpose of the Speedy Trial Act similarly confirm a district court’s discretion to consider a DPA’s substantive fairness.
Contrary to the parties’ contentions, the District Court’s rejection of the DPA poses no separation-of-powers problem. The District Court’s order does not force the Government to pursue a criminal prosecution. The Government remains free to negotiate a new DPA, try its case, or dismiss the charges. Prosecutorial discretion does not confer upon the Government the right to force a judge to exclude time from the Speedy Trial Act clock for 18 months. A district court order excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act is a judicial act, and separation-ofpowers principles give a judge the authority and the obligation to exercise independent judgment in performing that judicial act. If the Government had wanted to avoid judicial involvement, it should have signed a non-prosecution agreement; by instead choosing to invoke judicial process and filing a motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, it cannot now characterize the District Court’s denial of that motion as a separation-of-powers violation.
On the merits, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the DPA. FSBV willfully violated the U.S. sanctions regime over 1,000 times and repeatedly provided assistance to the Iranian military. Yet under the DPA, as long as it agreed to pay back the revenues it earned and promised not to break the law, it would get off scot-free. The District Court’s conclusion that the DPA was grossly disproportionate to FSBV’s conduct was entirely reasonable.”
Holder to Covington
Recently Covington & Burling announced :
“Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. , is returning to Covington as a partner after more than six years of service as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. Mr. Holder will be resident in the firm’s Washington office and focus on complex investigations and litigation matters, including matters that are international in scope and raise significant regulatory enforcement issues and substantial reputational concerns. […] Mr. Holder was a partner at Covington from 2001 until February 2009, when President Obama appointed and the Senate confirmed him as the nation’s 82nd Attorney General.”
Gibson Dunn’s Mid-Year FCPA Update is here .
Gibson Dunn’s Mid-Year Update on Corporate NPAs and DPAs is here .
A good weekend to all.