As highlighted in this prior post, in mid-2021, Edwards Lifesciences (a California based corporation which describes itself as “the global leader in patient-focused medical innovations for structural heart disease, as well as critical care and surgical monitoring”) disclosed FCPA scrutiny.
Specifically, the company disclosed that it was “investigating whether the allocation of certain grants and other payments initiated by certain employees of the Company in Japan violate certain provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The Company has voluntarily notified the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) that it has engaged outside counsel to conduct this investigation.”
The prior post raised the question of why the Company voluntarily notified the SEC and the DOJ that it is conducting an investigation to determine whether certain conduct violated the FCPA.
It would seem that a company should first determine whether the conduct violated the FCPA and then, if it has, make a decision whether or not to voluntary disclose.
That was 3.5 years ago.
In a recent quarterly filing, Edwards Lifesciences stated:
“The Company has provided status updates to the SEC and DOJ since that time. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not in compliance with existing laws, including the FCPA, could result in the imposition of fines, penalties, and equitable remedies. The Company cannot currently predict the final outcome of the investigation or any potential impact on its financial statements.”
Remember when a high-ranking Department of Justice official declared that it was the intent of the DOJ “for our FCPA investigations to be measured in months, not years.” (See here for the prior post).
The statement was laughable when made and remains laughable.
The FCPA scrutiny of Edwards Lifesciences is just another example of scrutiny soon approaching a fourth year.
