A costly monitor, Daimler’s DPA debacle, meeting releases, and another addition to the list (in an unusual way), it’s all here in the Friday roundup.
Willbros Monitor Costs
Earlier this week, Willbros Group announced (here) “that in connection with the Company’s completion of the requirements of the DPA and expiration of the term of the monitorship, on March 30, 2012, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges filed previously against the Company stemming from legacy issues in Nigeria and South America in 2005 and prior years, which led to the DPA.” In May 2008, Willbros resolved parallel DOJ (here) and SEC (here) FCPA enforcement actions and agreed to pay approximately $32 million in combined fines and penalties.
Pursuant to the May 2008 DOJ DPA, the monitor was supposed to be engaged by Willbros within 60 days. However the company disclosed that its monitor was not engaged until September 25, 2009 – an astounding year plus delay in engaging the monitor. Furthermore, although the monitor was supposed to serve a three year term per the DPA, the early termination provisions of the DPA apparently were triggered. Even though the monitor got a late start and its three year term was trimmed, the Willbros monitor had a nice assignment. Doing the math from figures disclosed in various SEC filings, the Willbros monitor cost has been approximately $10.2 million subject to increase for 1st quarter 2012 expenses ($3.6 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2011; $4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010; and $2.6 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009).
During a recent earnings conference call, Randy Harl (President and CEO of Willbros) stated as follows. “The DOJ monitorship brought great positive change to Willbros in the form of a stronger compliance culture. The cost of the monitor and the major spending to establish the required controls and processes are behind us. However, we will continue to invest in a compliance culture.”
Daimler DPA Debacle
While Willbros’s DPA expired, Daimler’s DPA was extended. As noted by Christopher Matthews in this Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents report, the two year DPA was set to expire, but was extended until December 31st. As noted in this prior post, in April 2010, Daimler agreed to pay approximately $185 million to resolve parallel DOJ and SEC FCPA enforcement actions. The prior post, along with this post, noted that the prosecution was a joke from the start, among other things, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon approved settlement on April Fool’s Day. The DOJ’s release noted that Daimler (and three of its subsidiaries) “brazenly offered bribes in exchange for business around the world” and that Daimler “saw foreign bribery as a way of doing business.” The DOJ alleged improper conduct all the way up to senior levels of the company, yet Daimler was not required to plead guilty to anything.
Instead Daimler was offered a two-year DPA. The term of the DPA could be extended if Daimler “knowingly violated any provision of the Agreement.” This recently filed amendment to the DPA is silent as to the reason for the extension.
I intended, but forgot, to include the above Daimler development in yesterday’s post (here) regarding NPAs and DPAs. Needless to say, the Daimler DPA debacle furthers the rationale for abolishing such resolution vehicles.
Chamber Sponsored FCPA Roundtable
Earlier this week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform hosted a roundtable discussion regarding the FCPA and upcoming FCPA guidance with Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, SEC Enforcement Division chief Robert Kuzami and Commerce Department General Counsel Kameron Kerry.
In this release, Lisa Rickard (President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform) stated as follows. “The business community is pleased with today’s frank and productive discussion on the significant uncertainty that many U.S. businesses face when attempting to comply in good faith with the FCPA. We are encouraged by the thoughtful dialogue that helped us reach a mutual understanding on many of these important issues. We look forward to working with the administration as it prepares the forthcoming guidance.” As noted in the release, the roundtable was attended by the following business groups or trade associations: the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the American Insurance Association, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the International Stability Operations Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, PhRMA, the Professional Services Council, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and The Financial Services Roundtable.
In this release, Rosario Palmieri (Vice President for Infrastructure, Legal and Regulatory Policy of the National Association of Manufacturers) stated as follows. “Manufacturers are facing a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to complying with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Today we had a very productive discussion and were able to share manufacturers’ concerns. We are hopeful that a continuing dialogue with the Administration will help us meet our mutual goals of increasing exports, stamping out corruption and providing clear rules of the road for international business.”
Another Addition to the List
In this recent release, Transparency International urges the DOJ to investigate the conduct of Walters Power International (an Oklahoma based company that supplies, develops, services and manages electrical generation power plants around the world see here) in connection with power plant projects in Pakistan. It is certainly not the traditional way in which companies become the subject of FCPA scrutiny, but even so it makes the list, and according to my tally, in the last seven weeks, eight companies have newly become the focus of FCPA scrutiny.
Also, last week’s post (here) discussed recent Libya related disclosures by Total S.A. and Eni S.p.A. It turns out that Marathon Oil Corp. can be added to that list. In its recent annual report, the company stated as follows. “On May 25, 2011, we received a subpoena issued by the SEC requiring production of documents related to payments made to the government of Libya, or to officials and persons affiliated with officials of the government of Libya. We have been and intend to continue cooperating with the SEC in its investigation.”
*****
A good weekend to all.
