Dear Clients and Friends,
The third and fourth quarters of 2013 proved to be eventful and poten- tially prophetic as to the course the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) is likely to take in 2014 and beyond. The overall number of enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) declined for the fourth straight year [see table below], but the DOJ is nonethe- less actively investigating over 150 cases and the SEC over 100. This decrease appears to be the result of proactive internal investigations and remediation by US companies that recognized the importance of retaining external resources to investigate FCPA issues in light of the substantial fines levied by the government over recent years. Additionally, the investigation and prosecution of cases evolved over the past year: the number of corporate enforcement actions decreased, while the number of individual enforcement actions rose. The agencies have increasingly adopted industry “sweeps” to identify corruption and have steadily been turning to hybrid monitors to ensure the future compliance of violators. Moreover, in an era of rapidly accelerating globalization, increased scrutiny is being placed, at home and abroad, on the actions of all international actors. With develop- ments abroad, especially in China, and the very public 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, issues of foreign corruption and bribery are likely to be under a very public lens in 2014.
FCPA Cases 2010-2013
[Text Box: Number of Cases] 40
2010 2011 2012 2013
A major trend seen in the FCPA context throughout 2013 was the DOJ and SEC’s use of “sweeps.” When a company was reported or discov- ered to have engaged in corruption (or had the opportunity for wide- spread corruption) the DOJ and SEC have begun scrutinizing not only that company, but related industries, companies, or even geographic regions abroad. In this way, the government conducts a broad – or sweeping – review of the industry or region, catching companies or indi- viduals that might not otherwise have been detected. This means that
companies doing business in a country or in an industry that has had recent FCPA investigations or enforcement actions within it are likely to be under closer-than-normal review by the government, and are advised to proactively consult with counsel to review both their compliance programs and internal review procedures.
An area that might see increased oversight because of “sweeps” is the pharmaceutical industry. As reported infra, Chinese authorities allege that numerous multi-national drug companies have engaged in corruption and bribery in China. These companies, including Baxter International, Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., GlaskoSmithKline, Novartis AG, and Sanofi AG, are major international actors, all have a significant presence in the United States, and several are traded on major U.S. exchanges. Consequently, given the actions by the Chinese govern- ment and the high degree of media coverage, these companies are
now almost certainly facing scrutiny by the DOJ and SEC. Additionally, because all are pharmaceutical companies, other drug companies, especially those doing business in China or Asia, are likely to face heightened oversight and review by the government.
In addition to sweeps, another development in the arsenal of the DOJ is the increasing use of hybrid monitors. Monitorships have been a staple of FCPA enforcement actions for some time. In 2013, four of seven DOJ cases involved the implementation of monitorship. Unlike traditional three year monitorships, however, hybrid monitors provide the DOJ with increased negotiating power. Rather than a full three year monitorships, hybrid monitorships consist of an initial 18 month period, at which time the monitor has the option of certifying the orga- nization as having met its compliance obligations and ending the oversight. Only if the monitor determines the company has failed to fully resolve its compliance issues does the monitorship continue for the full three year term. This gives the DOJ a powerful tool to induce settlement, negotiating a compromise with a company for a hybrid monitor for the company, rather than have the company risk a longer, drawn out, settlement or litigation that might result in a full, three year monitorship. This practice seems poised to further increase FCPA settlements, Deferred Prosecution Agreements or Non-Prosecution Agreements, rather than court based litigations.
Finally, as 2014 begins and the Winter Olympics are underway, businesses and individuals are urged to be mindful of their compliance with the FCPA. Previous international sporting events have given rise to FCPA liability, and with the increase of anti-bribery laws abroad, clients are urged to be aware not only of the FCPA, but also the UK Anti-Bribery Act and similar foreign statues.
On October 22, 2013, Diebold Inc. (“Diebold”) announced that it had resolved FCPA violations with both the DOJ and the SEC. The under- lying conduct subject to investigation was the same for both the DOJ and SEC. The SEC’s complaint described the conduct as:
[Concerning] violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by Diebold, Inc. (“Diebold”), an Ohio company that is a global provider of automated teller machines (“ATMs”) and bank security systems. From 2005 through 2010, Diebold, through its agents and subsidiaries, lavished inter- national leisure trips, entertainment, and other improper gifts on foreign officials to obtain and retain lucrative business with government owned banks in China and Indonesia. During that same period, Diebold, through its Russian subsidiary, paid bribes in connection with the sale of ATMS to private banks in Russia. In all, Diebold made approximately $3 million in illicit payments in China, Russia, and Indonesia.
Diebold entered a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ, in addition to agreeing to pay a $25.2 million penalty. Under the terms of the DPA, Diebold will be required to hire a compliance monitor for a minimum of 18 months and to put into effect additional internal controls. Diebold settled with the SEC for $22.97 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. In total, Diebold agreed to pay more than $48 million to resolve its FCPA violations.
On July 25, 2013, after over two years in limbo, federal Judge Richard Leon approved IBM’s FCPA settlement with the SEC. Judge Leon initially rejected the $10 million settlement, but following increased reporting and disclosure obligations to be imposed on IBM, granted his approval. The settlement stems from improper payments for travel and entertainment in South Korea and China.
Michigan-based medical technology company Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) has entered a $13.2 million settlement with the SEC following revelations of bribery in at least five foreign countries. According the SEC’s Cease and Desist Order:
From approximately August 2003 to February 2008 (the “relevant period”), Stryker made approximately $2.2 million in unlawful payments to various government employees including public health care professionals (collectively, the “foreign officials”) in Mexico, Poland, Romania, Argentina, and Greece. Stryker incorrectly described these expenses in the company’s books and records as legitimate consulting
and service contracts, travel expenses, charitable donations, or commissions, when in fact the payments were improperly made by Stryker to obtain or retain business. Stryker earned approximately $7.5 million in illicit profits as a result of these payments.
Since the corruption came to light, Stryker has implemented increased compliance programs and oversight, a fact that the SEC indicated it considered in agreeing to Stryker’s proposed settlement. In addition
to retaining outside counsel and conducting an internal investigation, Stryker also implemented increased compliance on a company-wide level, and hired a “third-party consultant to perform FCPA compli- ance assessments and compile written reports.” The SEC noted, “[b] ased on the [compliance improvements], Stryker has demonstrated a commitment to designing and funding a meaningful compliance program in order to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-bribery laws.”
Weatherford International (“Weatherford”) and three of its subsidiaries, including Weatherford Services Limited (“WSL”) have settled FCPA related violations with the DOJ and SEC for $152.6 million – the ninth largest FCPA settlement to date. Additionally, Weatherford and four subsidiaries have also agreed to a $100 million settlement for viola- tions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. These latter charges were connected to export violations with Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan.
In settling with the DOJ, WSL pled guilty to criminal bribery, and Weatherford was charged in a one count criminal information with “violating the internal controls provision of the FCPA.” Weatherford resolved the charge against it with a DPA and agreed to an $87.2 million criminal fine. Weatherford also settled with the SEC, agreeing to increased compliance programs, the retention of an independent corporate monitor, and $65,6122,360 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
According to the DOJ, “Weatherford International knowingly failed to establish an effective system of internal accounting controls designed to detect and prevent corruption, including FCPA violations.” In its press release, the DOJ pointed to several specific instances of corrup- tion. First, in an African joint venture, Weatherford paired with two local entities. “The sole purpose of those local entities, in fact, was
to serve as conduits through which Weatherford Services funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the foreign offi- cials controlling them.” Second, Weatherford employees bribed at least one foreign official to secure “the renewal of an oil services contract.” Third, “volume discounts” were offered to a middleman in the Middle East with the intent of funneling the money to leaders of a national oil company – and gaining a business advantage and
more contracts. Finally, Weatherford’s “failure to implement effective internal accounting controls also permitted corrupt conduct relating to the United Nations’ Oil for Food Program to occur….” In its release announcing the settlement, the DOJ expressly pointed to the compa-
ny’s internal investigation and remediation efforts as part of the expla- nation for the settlement.
Companies Facing Potential FCPA Exposure & Companies Already Under Investigation
On September 6, 2013, Agilent Technologies (“Agilent”), which produces medical equipment, disclosed in its Form 10-Q that it had “initiated an internal inves- tigation” based upon potentially improper actions undertaken
by its employees in China. According to the disclosure, “the Company determined that certain employees of Agilent’s subsid- iaries in China did not comply with the Company’s Standards
of Business Conduct and other policies.” Agilent voluntarily disclosed its investigation to both the DOJ and SEC on September 5, 2013. As of
December 6, 2013, no actions had been disclosed by the DOJ or SEC with regard to the company.
In March 2013, Anheuser-Busch InBev (“InBev”) revealed that the SEC had begun an investigation into its Indian affiliates, including its joint venture, InBev Indian Int’l Private Ltd. On July 31, 2013, InBev announced in its Form
6-k filing with the SEC that the DOJ had commenced a parallel investigation.
Avon Products, Inc.
In its August 1, 2013, Form 10-Q, Avon Products, Inc. (“Avon”) revealed that its $12 million settlement offer to the DOJ
and SEC had been rejected
by both agencies. Then, in its October 31, 2013, Form 10-Q, the company revealed that the SEC had proposed settlement terms, which Avon rejected, that included “monetary penal- ties of a magnitude significantly greater than our earlier offer.”
Furthermore, Avon revealed that it anticipated, but had not yet received, a similar settlement offer from the DOJ. “If the DOJ’s offer is comparable to the SEC’s offer and if the Company were to enter into settlement with the
SEC and the DOJ at such levels, we believe that the Company’s earnings, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and ongoing business would be materially adversely impacted.” To date, the company is believed to have spent $300 million on its internal investigation.
Baxter International, Inc. Baxter International, Inc. (“Baxter”) has uncovered improper payments made by a joint venture, the Guangzhou Baxter Qioguang Health Co., of which it is a part. Following employee-provided tips, the
company uncovered the improper payments, made to a Chinese travel agency. The company then took steps to remediate the issue, including disciplining employees and instituting new training programs.
BHP Billiton (“BHP”) revealed recently that the SEC and DOJ have disclosed the “issues they consider could form the basis of enforcement actions and discussions.” BHP has had an
ongoing internal investigation into alleged FCPA violations, largely connected the company’s involve- ment with the 2008 Olympics and “exploration and development efforts,” since 2009. The inves- tigation was sparked by a 2009 SEC request for information.
Deutsche Bank AG
Reuters reported on September 9, 2013, that “Japan’s securities market watchdog,” the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (“SESC”), had begun investigating poten-
tially improper expenditures by Deutsche Bank AG to entertain pension fund heads. As pointed out by the article, these pension fund heads are considered public employees and therefore issues of bribery are implicated by the expenditures. However, given that the bank has already begun mitigation efforts, the SESC may view the potential violations with increased leniency.
Dumex Baby Food Co. Dumex Baby Food Co. (“Dumex”), which is owned by Danone S.A., has launched an investigation into claims that marketers have been paying
doctors and nurses to use their products on maternity wards throughout China. There is no word yet of the results of the investigation or on whether or not the SEC or DOJ are involved.
Eli Lilly & Co.
On August 22, 2013, Reuters reported that a Chinese news- paper that had recently published allegations that U.S. pharmaceu- tical manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co. (“Eli Lilly”) had paid physicians and nurses in China more than
$4.9 million to use its drugs–in particular a “key insulin product in Shanghai and Anhui province.” The company acknowledged that it was first made aware of similar rumors in 2012, and has since that time been investigating past conduct and monitoring current practices. Eli Lilly responded to
the current allegations stating that they had not yet confirmed the accusations, but were continuing to investigate
Gold Fields Limited
Gold Fields Limited (“Gold Fields”) announced via its website, on September 10, 2013, that it was under investigation by the SEC “relat[ed] to the Black Economic Empowerment transaction asso- ciated with the granting of the mining license for its South Deep [South Africa] operation.” At its core, the investigation is likely to focus on allegations of bribery and potential FCPA liability for
ownership allocations made by Gold Fields to Baleka Mbete, the chairwoman of ANC party, to secure mining rights for the company.”
The second half of 2013 saw major developments in the bribery and corruptions allegations, which continue to emerge, regarding GlaskoSmithKline (“GSK”) opera- tions in China. By mid-July 2013, four GSK executives had been detained in China, and GSK was accused of paying more than
$489 million in bribes to doctors to incentivize the use of their products. By July 22, 2013, GSK released a statement to the effect: “Certain senior executives of GSK China who know our system well, appear to have acted outside of our processes and controls which breaches Chinese law. We have zero tolerance for any behavior
of this nature.” By the end of July, 22 people had been detained, and by September 2013, reports shifted from blaming individual salespersons to GSK China, at the company level. The allega- tions suggest that GSK, through over 700 travel agencies, made payments that ultimately went to influence doctors’ use of GSK’s pharmaceutical products. Such bribes likely constituted 20-30% of the drugs’ prices.
Corruption in China, especially in the pharmaceutical industry,
is increasingly coming to light. Among other companies that are or have faced charges similar to GSK are AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. GSK previously disclosed that the SEC and DOJ first contacted it about potential FCPA violations in China as early as 2010.
Hyperdynamics Corp. Hyperdynamics Corporation (“HC”) disclosed in its November 12, 2013, Form
10-Q that it was in receipt of a subpoena from the DOJ:
… requesting [HC] produce documents relating to [its] business in Guinea. [HC] understand[s] that the DOJ is investigating
whether [HC’s] activities in obtaining and retaining the Concession rights and our relationships with chari- table organizations poten- tially violate the FCPA and anti-money laundering statutes.
The investigation is in connec- tion with HC’s seafloor rights off the coast of the Republic of
Guinea. Tullow Oil Plc and Dana Petroleum E&P Ltd. are HC’s partners in the project.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC”) is currently under investigation based upon allegations that it potentially violated the FCPA by
hiring the children of prominent and well-connected Chinese leaders. The ongoing investigation involves both the DOJ and SEC and is likely to expand throughout Asia – where JPMC has a historic presence. Although the hiring of individuals with family or business connections is not by itself a FCPA violation, if employment decisions are intended to curry favor or win business for the company, then such actions might constitute a violation. In September 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that JPMC offered to pay a total of
$3 billion to resolve a number of civil and criminal cases, including any potential FCPA liability related to the DOJ and SEC’s investiga- tions. The offer was reportedly not accepted.
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
On October 24, 2013, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company (“Mead Johnson”) revealed that it was in receipt of a SEC document request for information related
to potentially improper actions undertaken by a Chinese subsid- iary. The company further indi- cated that it had begun an internal investigation, with the help of outside counsel, and was cooper- ating with the SEC.
The Wall Street Journal reveal on August 21, 2013, that Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) is under
investigation for potential FCPA violations made by its “business partners” in, among other places, Russia and Pakistan. The paper is reporting that kickbacks may have been made to Russian “execu- tives of a state owned company to win a deal.” Additionally, improper travel may have been provided
to a Pakistani official to secure business. Microsoft has reportedly opened an internal investigation into the matter.
National Geographic Society When one generally thinks of individuals or entities facing FCPA scrutiny, what most frequently comes to mind are large, multi- national companies, profit driven, publicly traded firms, and high profile CEOs. What does not typically come to mind are non- profits. But in October 2013 it
was revealed that the National Geographic Society (“NGS”) is under investigation by the DOJ for potential criminal bribery. The investigation is connected to NGS’s launch of the National
Geographic Channel in 2001 and retention of Egyptian antiquities expert Dr. Zahi Hawaas. During his tenure with NGS, Dr. Hawaas was also an employee of the Egyptian Government. Through Dr. Hawaas, it is alleged, NGS obtained significant access to arti- facts and archeological sites that it otherwise would not have been privy to. Although NGS always
disclosed its payments, such payments and the access
Dr. Hawaas provided and facili- tated are being construed as bribes. NGS has denied any wrongdoing.
Novartis AG (“Novartis”) has opened an internal investigation into potential wrongdoing by its employees in China. Specifically, the Wall Street Journal reported “an employee of the company offered money to doctors to boost sales of its drugs in the country, a practice it said led to higher pharmaceutical prices for
consumers.” The Chinese govern- ment has reportedly begun an investigation, and has, in general, been increasing scrutiny of foreign drug companies doing business in China. Beside Novartis, both GSK and Sanofi, among others, are reportedly under investigation.
Owens-Illinois Group Inc. Owens-Illinois Group Inc. revealed in its Form 10-Q on July 25, 2013, that the DOJ had declined to
bring an enforcement action for potential FCPA violations by the company. The company began an internal investigation into allega- tions of wrongdoing in 2012, and voluntarily disclosed that informa- tion to the DOJ and SEC later that year, in October 2012. On July 18, 2013, the company learned of the DOJ’s decision not to bring charges. The SEC has
not yet revealed whether it will follow the DOJ, or whether it will bring its own charges. The Form 10-Q also stated that the company is cognizant that it could face scrutiny and potential legal action abroad.
provided to several individuals associated with Chinese state- owned companies or agencies.” A whistleblower complaint first drew the attention of the SEC in 2009-2010, and the DOJ became involved in early 2012. The
company stated that it is continuing
2013, Canadian police announced that they suspected the company of paying $160 million to the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi to win contracts. Internal audits have also uncovered
over $50 million in bribes paid
to middlemen to obtain work for
Park Ohio Industries Inc.
to conduct an internal investigation, the company. SNC has report-
Park Ohio Industries Inc. (“Park
Ohio”) disclosed on November 14, 2013, that it was under investiga- tion by both the SEC and DOJ due to a third party’s “payment
on behalf of the Company to a foreign tax official that implicates the [FCPA].” The company, which has operations in several coun- tries, did not reveal which opera- tion was involved or the scale of the payment made. Park Ohio indicated it intends to cooperate with the government, but did not reveal further details.
Scrutiny of foreign hiring prac- tices, where they involved indi- viduals who are well connected or related to government officials, seems to be on the rise. This facet of the FCPA has garnered increased attention as a result of the ongoing issues facing JPMC.
Qualcomm has now also revealed in its July 24, 2013 Form 10-Q, that it too is now subject to inves- tigation by the SEC and DOJ for potentially improper “instances
in which special hiring consid- erations, gifts or other benefits (collectively, benefits) were
and that it uncovered the improper payments, which it disclosed, through the internal review.
Like GSK, Novartis, and Baxter, Sanofi AG (“Sanofi”), a French pharmaceutical company, announced in August 2013 that it was looking into claims that employees in China paid over
$277,800 in bribes to 503 doctors in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou. Classified by
the company as grants, reports indicate that the payments may actually have been bribes to induce the doctors to use Sanofi’s products.
Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin (“SNC”), which has offices in 40 countries, employs 34,000 people, and does business in
100 countries, is facing further scrutiny over allegations of bribery abroad. In April 2013, the World Bank implemented a 10 year ban for the company after allegations of corruption by the company in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Libya, and Algeria were uncovered. Later in
edly taken steps to correct and remediate its issues; it recently announced that it had issued an anti-corruption manual to all employees and was utilizing a
monitor to interface with the World Bank.
French company Vinci is facing scrutiny for alleged bribes paid to a Russian official to obtain
a contract to build a highway connecting Moscow to
St. Petersburg. The French investigation is ongoing.
Wal-Mart’s FCPA troubles continue to grow. What began as an internal investigation into
possible bribes in Mexico in 2011, has turned into a multi-national investigation, involving both the DOJ and SEC. To date, Wal-Mart has spent over $300 million on the investigation, and in August 2013, indicated that the company expected to spend between
$150-160 million through the third and fourth quarter of 2013 on
the investigation. As part of the investigation, the company will
seek to determine the extent of the corruption abroad and to review and update its compliance programs.
News of Wal-Mart’s FCPA troubles first broke in 2011, when reporters David Barstow and Alejandra Xanic von Bertrabof, of the New York Times, revealed that hundreds of improper payments had been made in Mexico to facilitate the company’s expansion in that country. The reporters, who went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for their work, found evidence that the payments totaled over $24 million, and to make matters worse, that Wal-Mart had intentionally sought to cover up the bribes. Following the New York Times article, Wal-Mart disclosed infor- mation it uncovered in an internal investigation in November 2011 to both the DOJ and SEC. Both government agencies continue to inves- tigate the matter and have significantly expanded the scope of their investigation; Wal-Mart’s activities in China and India are now also being increasingly scrutinized.
U.S. v. Alain Riedo
Alain Riedo (“Riedo”) was indicted on October 15, 2013, for viola- tions of the FCPA. The charges include Conspiracy, Bribery, Book and Records, and Internal Accounting Controls violations. Riedo, a Swiss citizen, was a former Vice President, General Manager, and officer
of Maxwell S.A. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Maxwell Technologies, Inc.). According to the indictment, Riedo, with and through Maxwell S.A., sought to “make corrupt payments to Chinese government offi- cials, including officials at the Pinggao Group.” The purpose of these payments was to “obtain and retain business, prestige, and increased compensation for Riedo, Maxwell, Maxwell S.A., and others.”
The case is U.S. v Riedo, No. 13-3789 (S.D. Ca. 2012).
U.S. v. Hoskins
Lawrence Hoskins and William Pomponi were indicted via a Second Superseding Indictment on July 30, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on charges of Conspiracy, FCPA violations, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, and Money Laundering. The DOJ’s press release regarding Hoskins describes the underlying conduct:
According to the charges, the defendants, together with others,
allegedly paid bribes to officials in Indonesia – including
a member of the Indonesian Parliament and high-ranking members of Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), the state-owned and state-controlled electricity company in Indonesia – in exchange for assistance in securing a $118 million contract, known as the Tarahan project, for the company and its consor- tium partner to provide power-related services for citizens of Indonesia.
The case is U.S. v. Hoskins, No. 12-00238 (D. Ct. 2012).
In July 2013, Alumina Limited (“Alumina”), Alcoa’s joint venture partner in Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals, announced that a possible FCPA settlement with the DOJ and SEC might be forthcoming. The settlement, which might resolve the entity’s FCPA liability connected to bribes paid to a Bahraini company, could total more than $300 million.
Archer Daniel Midland Company
In August 2008, Archer Daniel Midland Company (“ADM”) began an internal investigation into potential FCPA violations. The company notified the DOJ and SEC regarding these potential violations in March 2009, and the internal investigation continued through October 2013. In its August 7, 2013 Form 10-Q, ADM disclosed that
it had significantly increased its settlement reserve from $29 million to
$54 million. Then, in its November 1, 2013 Form 10-Q, the company announced that it had completed its annual review and was actively engaging in settlement discussions with SEC and DOJ.
Alliance One International (“Alliance”) announced on October 1, 2013, that it had successfully completed a three year compliance monitorship. The monitorship was the product of August 2010 agreements between Alliance, the DOJ, and the SEC, stemming from violations of the FCPA in Kyrgyzstan and Thailand. An independent compliance monitor was hired by the company, and in May 2013, certified the viability of the company’s current compliance program. The monitor also indicated that all of his recommendations had been instituted.
Lujan, Hurtado, Bethancourt
The DOJ announced on August 30, 2013, that Ernesto Lujan, Alejandro Hurtado, and Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt pleaded guilty to six charges, including to violating the FCPA and to money laundering. The three individuals were former employees of a New York-based broker-dealer that were involved, according to the DOJ press release, in “a scheme to bribe a foreign official named Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez de Hernandez at Banco de Desarrollo
Economico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES), a state economic devel- opment bank in Venezuela….” Sentencing is set for early 2014. Each of the counts carries a maximum five year prison sentence, except
for money laundering, which has a maximum sentence of 20 years. If sentenced to the maximum prison time, the defendants each face 45 years in jail.
Notable Legal Developments
Judge Bates Invalidates Extractive Industry Disclosure Requirements
United States District Judge John Bates, in a July 2, 2013 Order, invali- dated the SEC’s rules requiring certain public disclosures by entities in the oil, natural gas, and mining industries. Judge Bates characterized the rule at issue, which was promulgated under § 1504 of the Dodd- Frank Act, as “a Rule requiring certain companies to disclose payments made to foreign government in connection with the commercial devel- opment of oil, natural gas, or minerals.” The plaintiffs in the case, the America Petroleum Institute, argued that the rule’s public disclosure element was improper, especially in light of the fact that at least four countries, Angola, Cameroon, China, and Qatar, prohibit such public disclosures. The plaintiffs also contended, and the SEC did not dispute, that the rule’s initial implementation would cost American companies around $1 billion, and another $200-400 million in continued mainte- nance costs.
Judge Bates sided with the plaintiffs, and invalidated the public disclo- sure requirements. Companies will still need to report their expendi- tures, but will not be required to have said information fully disclosed. As stated by Judge Bates:
“Section 13(q) requires in subsection (2)(A) disclosure of annual reports but says nothing about whether the disclosure must be public or may be made to the Commission alone. Neither the dictionary definition nor the ordinary meaning of “report” contains a public disclosure requirement. And section 13(q) expressly addresses public availability of information in the follow subsec- tion, (3)(A), establishing a different and ore limited requirement for what must be publicly available than for what must annually reported.”
The case is American Petroleum Inst. V. SEC, No. 12-1668 (D.D.C. Jul. 2, 2013).
Senator Jack Reed to Seek increase in Statute of Limitations In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gabelli v. SEC, wherein the court refused to allow the SEC to increase existing statutes of limita- tions, it has come to light that Senator Jack Reed may seek to pass legislation that would statutorily extend the statute of limitations for, among other statues, the FCPA. The current statute of limitations for the FCPA is five years, which is frequently extended through the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment allegations, continuing course of conduct, and tolling agreements. Senator Reed’s legislation would make the statute of limitations 10 years.
Historic First – 11th Circuit to Weigh In on Definition of “Foreign Official”
The 11th Circuit, seated in Miami, FL, heard oral argument on Friday, October 11, 2013, over the meaning of the term “foreign official” as utilized in the FCPA. This is the first time an appellate court has had the chance to weigh in on the issue. Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez, both of whom were convicted of multiple criminal offenses related to FCPA violations, brought the appeal. At the core of their case is the assertion that state owned Telecommunications D’Haiti S.A.M. (“TDH”) is not a state instrumentality and that therefore, its personnel are not foreign officials. Should the court find for Esquenazi and Rodriguez,
and find that TDH is not an instrumentality, then any alleged payment or
bribes would not run afoul of the FCPA.
Recent FCPA Investigations and
Enforcements in Brazil
BRIC Spotlight: Brazil Takes Anti-Corruption to a New Level
There is an increasing trend world-wide, and in Latin America in particular, to combat corrup-
tion. Nowhere is this more evident than in Brazil – which passed the nation’s first anti-corruption statute just last year. On August 1, 2013, Brazilian President Dilma Vana Rousseff signed into law the Anti- Bribery Act or “Lei Anticorrupção.” The new law, effective January 29, 2014, for the first time, imposes strict liability on corporate entities for their involvement in acts of corruption in Brazil.
Brazil’s Resources and Investment Opportunities Brazil is the largest country in South America – its over 3 million square miles contain a wealth
of resources. On December 19, 2013, Petrobras, the publicly traded company whose majority stockholder is the Government of Brazil, announced the discovery of oil reserves off the coast of the state of Rio Grande do Norte,
in the northeastern part of the country. This discovery followed an earlier finding of reserves off the northeastern coast of the state of Sergipe, which came on the heels of an announcement in October 2013 that a consortium including Petrobras, Shell, Total, and two Chinese firms won the right to develop a field off the
coast of Rio de Janeiro that could hold up to 12 billion barrels of oil.
After crude oil, the second largest commodity cargo in the world
is iron ore – and Brazil has a lot of that, too. Home to one of the largest iron deposits in the world, Brazil, is the biggest producer of iron ore, accounting for about 31 percent of global iron ore exports.
Brazil is also an agricultural leader. It is the largest sugar producer in the world – and over half of the hundreds of millions of metric tons of sugar produced in Brazil is used for ethanol production.
With the fifth largest population in the world, another important resource in Brazil is its people, who work to produce a GDP that is seventh highest in the world
– between $2.2 and $2.4 trillion. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, last year Brazil’s population exceeded 200 million for the first time.
According to the World Bank, foreign direct investment in Brazil increased over 40% from 2010 to 2012, when it reached over
$76 billion. Given that Brazil will be hosting the World Cup games this year, and the 2016 Summer Olympics, foreign investment in Brazil will likely continue to rise. In short, business in Brazil is booming. Yet foreign investors must be aware of the corrup- tion risks that may accompany
business opportunities in a nation that now has broad power to hold corporations liable for corrupt payments to government officials.
Background of Anti-Bribery Act
A draft of the Anti-Bribery law was introduced in 2010, but it languished until mid-2013. In the
months leading up to the passage of the Anti-Bribery Act, Brazil made international headlines because
of social protests in which millions reportedly took to the streets of over a hundred Brazilian cities. Although these demonstrations were triggered by increased prices in public transportation, many protesters cited their frustration with corruption as one of the driving factors behind the protests. By this time, many members of former President Lula’s admin- istration had been implicated in widespread corruption scandals. In fact, in November 2013, criminal charges stemming from corruption were brought against several former members of Lula’s administration.
Overview of the Anti-Bribery Act
The Brazilian Anti-Bribery Law prohibits corrupt payments to both foreign and domestic officials. Specifically, the Anti-Bribery Law prohibits (i) promising, offering,
or giving, directly or indirectly, an undue advantage to a public official, or third person related to
him or her; (ii) financing, funding, or sponsoring or in any way subsidizing, the practice of illicit acts under the law; or (iii) using an intermediary legal entity or indi- viduals to conceal or disguise its real interests or the identity of the beneficiaries of the wrongdoings.
In the context of government contracts, companies are prohib- ited from (i) defrauding the competitive nature of a public bidding process; (ii) preventing, hindering, or defrauding the performance of any act of a public bidding procedure; (iii) diverting or attempting to divert a bidder
by fraudulent means or by the offer of any type of advantage;
(iv) defrauding a public bid or its resulting contract; (v) deceitfully forming an entity to participate in a public bid or contract; (vi) illegally benefitting from changes or exten- sions of government contracts;
(vii) defrauding the financial- economic balance of government contracts; or (viii) hindering or interfering with the investiga- tions or audits of public agencies, entities, or agents.
The new law imposes strict liability on both corporations and indi- vidual offenders. Importantly, absent a few very limited excep- tions, Brazil does not impose criminal sanctions on corporations. These exceptions are limited to certain violations of environmental laws; thus, corporations cannot
be criminally liable for engaging in the conduct prohibited under the new law. However, offenders may be subject to steep civil penalties and serious administrative sanc- tions. Fines permitted range from
0.1 percent (0.1%) to 20 percent (20%) of the violator’s gross revenues from the year preceding an enforcement action. If gross revenues cannot be estimated, the fine may be set within a range of R$6,000 to R$60,000,000 (approx- imately $2,600 to $26,000,000).
In addition to fines, offenders face a number of other potential sanc- tions including (1) full disgorge- ment of illegally obtained benefits,
(2) forfeiture of assets, rights, or other values obtained as a result of the wrongdoing; (3) partial or full suspension of corporate activi- ties; (4) compulsory dissolution;
or (5) debarment for one to five years, including prohibition from receiving incentives, subsidies, grants, donations or loans from public financial institutions during the debarment period.
The new law enables companies to potentially mitigate penal-
ties and sanctions through self- disclosure and full cooperation with government investigations and proceedings. The Act autho- rizes the government to enter into “leniency agreements,” through which the Brazilian government may provide an offender with
the following benefits: (i) up to a
two-thirds reduction in fines; (ii)
a waiver of debarment; and (iii) avoidance of government publica- tion of its decision with regard to the conduct. Only the first violator to come forward to cooperate with an investigation will be eligible
for a leniency agreement and even then, there is no guarantee that a cooperating offender who self-discloses will receive these benefits. In determining whether to entertain a leniency agree- ment, the Brazilian government will consider the seriousness
of the violation as well as the benefits obtained by the company through the prohibited conduct.
In addition, leniency agreements will depend upon whether the Brazilian government is convinced that the violative conduct has ceased and that the offending company has developed internal controls to prevent that the reoc- currence of such conduct.
Corruption Outlook and Key Considerations for Investors Despite the passage of the Anti- Bribery Act last year, and charges for corruption and embezzlement against several public officials from the Lula Administration,
Brazil has not made any gains on Transparency International’s Corruption Percentage Index. In fact, over the last four years, Brazil has remained at almost a standstill in terms of its ranking,
which in 2013, was in a five-way
tie for 72 out of 177 countries. (Another large U.S. trading partner, China, tied with Greece for 80th.) Enforcement of the Anti-Bribery law may eventu- ally drive movement in Brazil’s Corruption Percentage Index
ranking; however, that will depend largely upon how effectively the new law is enforced. One chal- lenge to effective implementation of the new law is the fact that the law does not assign enforcement of the law to a single specific government agency or body, so
it remains unclear how aggres- sively enforcement actions will be pursued and whether the new law will deter improper behavior among companies’ local and
international workforces, who have operated until now under a very different set of rules.
U.S. companies with Brazilian subsidiaries, as well as those considering investments in Brazil must be aware that passage of the new law will not necessarily decrease corruption risks in Brazil. As evident in Brazil’s stagnant,
not-so-favorable Transparency International ranking, corruption is no stranger to Brazil. There are many layers of government in Brazil – there are 26 states,
and countless local governments, including the largest city in the Southern Hemisphere, São Paulo. Furthermore, the Brazilian govern- ment is heavily involved in the
regulation of various major indus- tries, including the energy sector. Subcontracting with third parties who deal with the government is commonplace.
Companies with Brazilian opera- tions should examine their current anti-corruption compliance policies and if they have not already done so, update them to ensure compli- ance with the new Anti-Bribery Law as soon as possible. Although many of the hallmarks of an effec- tive FCPA compliance program will also address many of the requirements of the Anti-Bribery Act, training, policies and mate- rials should be tailored to the new law and its specific provisions – in particular, the fact that the new law imposes strict liability requires an added level of vigilance. An effec- tive FCPA policy should red flag
subcontracts with third parties, and high risk areas such as govern- ment contracting; interactions
with customs and tax authorities; and efforts to obtain government approvals necessary to secure required licenses, permits, and certifications. However, because the Brazilian law contains no element of intent, comprehensive, regular internal checks in these areas will be critical.
Recent FCPA Enforcements in Brazil
In December 2012, Eli Lilly settled
the SEC’s FCPA allegations into its Russian, Polish, Chinese, and Brazilian operations for $29.4 million, including $14 million in disgorged profits, $6.7 million
in prejudgment interest, and an
$8.7 million civil penalty. Eli Lilly must also obtain an independent consultant to review its anti-bribery policies and provide recommen- dations about its policies and procedures. The DOJ has, so far, refrained from bringing any related charges against the company.
The SEC alleged that at least one employee of Lilly’s Brazilian subsidiary was aware of a 2007
scheme through which one of their third-party pharmaceutical distribu- tors paid bribes of approximately
$70,000 to government officials in a Brazilian state in order to assure sales of a Lilly product to state government institutions.
According to the SEC complaint, Lilly-Brazil’s usual sales practice was to distribute drugs through third-party distributors who would then resell those products to private and government entities. Typically, Lilly-Brazil sold the drugs to distributors at a discount of between 6.5% and 15%, and the distributors then resold the drugs to the end users at a higher price, keeping the difference as their compensation.
The SEC alleged that in 2007, at the request of a Lilly-Brazil sales and marketing manager, the
company granted a nationwide pharmaceutical distributor unusu- ally large discounts of 17% to 19% for two of that distributor’s purchases of a Lilly drug, which were then sold to a Brazilian state government. The complaint includes language about deficient policies and procedures to flag
unusual discounts and alleges that the Lilly-Brazil sales and marketing manager was aware of the distrib- utor’s arrangement.
In March 2012, the DOJ filed
a criminal information against Biomet. The company entered a three year deferred prosecution agreement under which it agreed to a penalty of $17.28 million. In addition, the company agreed to retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for at least 18 months and to self-monitor and report for the full three-year period.
That same day, the SEC filed a complaint against Biomet. Biomet agreed to the entry of a court order permanently enjoining it from future FCPA violations. The company also agreed to disgorge- ment and prejudgment interest
of $5.57 million. The SEC also ordered Biomet to retain an inde- pendent corporate compliance monitor for 18 months.
The SEC complaint contained allegations related to activities in Argentina, China, and Brazil.
In Brazil, Biomet was alleged to have, through its distributor,
paid bribes to doctors employed by publicly owned and operated hospitals to encourage the sale of its products. The complaint alleged that the distributor “paid the doctors bribes in the form of ‘commissions’ of 10-20 percent of the value of the medical devices purchased.” These payments were, according to the SEC, discussed in documents between the distributor, a Biomet subsid- iary, and Biomet’s executives and auditors in the United States. In
2002, the Director of Internal Audit sent a memorandum to two execu- tives stating that the distributor’s payments to the doctors “may
be considered as a kickback.” However, the payments continued until 2008, when accountants
and outside counsel for Biomet engaged in due diligence raised the red flag. By this time, the SEC alleges, Biomet had paid approxi- mately $1.1 million to doctors for their use of Biomet products.
Although no FCPA cases were filed in 2013 involving compa- nies’ operations in Brazil, there are several pending investiga- tions under the FCPA that have been disclosed in the press and in companies’ public filings. The upcoming World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympic games will certainly put the spotlight on
Brazil and will grow business in a country where foreign investment and resource development has already exploded over the last few years. Yet companies cashing in on this explosion must ensure that their internal controls are up to par to meet not only FCPA standards, but to also comply with Brazil’s new Anti-Bribery Act.
FCPA Practice Team
John J. Carney, Partner
John J. Carney, a former Securities Fraud Chief, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Senior Counsel and practicing CPA, serves as co-leader of the firm’s national White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations group. He focuses his practice on advising and defending corporations and senior officers on FCPA compliance, investigation and defense. His significant experience in conducting investigations of possible FCPA viola- tions and other potentially improper foreign, country-based financial transactions has included working on major matters
in the key “BRIC” countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). He has also worked proactively with companies to structure and implement FCPA compliance programs designed to avoid potential violations and lessen government sanctions should an FCPA violation occur. Mr. Carney is a seasoned advocate recognized in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as a leader in his field.
George A. Stamboulidis, Partner
George A. Stamboulidis, former Chief of the Long Island Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and lead prosecutor in several significant high-profile cases, has been selected as an independent monitor on five separate occa- sions, more than any other attorney. He applied and refined his deep knowledge of the FCPA while reviewing policies and proce- dures for the various institutions as part of these monitorships. Additionally, he regularly conducts internal investigations, evalu- ates financial transaction controls and makes recommendations for changes to ensure that adequate internal review procedures exist for clients’ organizations. Mr. Stamboulidis was quoted in the Best Practices section in Managing Independent Monitors
in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guidebook— Protecting Your Organization from Bribery and Corruption by Martin and Daniel Biegelman. He received the Justice
Department’s coveted Director’s Award for Superior Performance three times and was named a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel
of America, a trial lawyer honorary society comprised of experi- enced and effective litigators throughout the U.S.
Jonathan R. Barr, Partner
Jonathan R. Barr, a former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Fraud Section Trial Attorney, Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and a former Senior Counsel at the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Division
of Enforcement, focuses a significant portion of his practice
on conducting internal investigations for public and non-public corporations, defending corporations and individuals in FCPA criminal and civil enforcement investigations and advising corporations on FCPA compliance. He has significant experi- ence representing corporations making voluntary disclosures to the U.S. Government. He has represented clients in FCPA investigations relating to Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil and China and has advised public and non-public corporations on creating and implementing FCPA compliance programs. Mr. Barr was recognized among The Best Lawyers in America®2013 and as a Washington, D.C., “Super Lawyer” in 2012.
Timothy S. Pfeifer, Partner
Timothy S. Pfeifer has extensive FCPA compliance and proce- dures experience. He has conducted numerous internal inves- tigations on behalf of international companies regarding FCPA violations, conflicts of interest, related and third-party transac- tions, and other employee and management misconduct. He has also conducted transactional due diligence in relation to these matters. He has advised corporate clients on enacting and enforcing internal controls, drafting and revising codes
of conduct and designing “best practices” policies and proce- dures. His clients have included major pharmaceutical and tele- communications companies and their foreign subsidiaries, large foreign oil and chemical companies, U.S. and foreign banks, and foreign sovereigns, such as the Republic of Azerbaijan. Mr. Pfeifer has particular experience with the emerging economies of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. He was named a New York “Super Lawyers, Rising Star” in 2011.
Lauren J. Resnick, Partner
Lauren J. Resnick, former Assistant United States Attorney, has conducted numerous internal investigations on behalf of interna- tional companies in the financial services, pharmaceutical, health- care, and oil and natural gas industries regarding FCPA violations, accounting irregularities and conflicts of interest. She has consid- erable investigatory experience conducting due diligence for clients seeking overseas joint ventures and has led internal FCPA investigations for clients in countries such as Nigeria, China and Spain. She regularly advises corporate clients on optimizing internal controls and corporate governance, revising business codes of conduct and designing policies and procedures to enhance statutory and regulatory compliance. She has extensive experience advising clients on FCPA compliance issues and has remediated numerous books and records violations. Additionally, Ms. Resnick has supervised numerous monitorships in connection with the firm’s appointment by the DOJ and other governmental agencies to assess compliance procedures including FCPA policies and procedures. She was recognized among The Best Lawyers in America®2013, as a New York “Super Lawyer” since 2011 and twice received the Justice Department’s prestigious Director’s Award for Superior Performance.
Jimmy Fokas, Partner
Jimmy Fokas, a former Senior Counsel in the Division of Enforcement in the New York Regional Office of the SEC, has extensive FCPA investigatory experience. He has reviewed compliance policies and recommended remedial measures regarding books, records and internal controls violations for numerous clients. He conducted an investigation of possible bribes to government officials involving a supplier and subcon- tractor in India, reviewed compliance policies and recom- mended remedial measures. He also managed a legal team in connection with the firm’s appointment as independent monitor of a non-prosecution agreement between the DOJ and Mellon Bank, N.A., which involved assessment of the bank’s global compliance and employee training programs. He subsequently made recommendations for enhancements to policies and procedures around data privacy, government contracting, FCPA and other compliance programs.
Jonathan B. New, Partner
Jonathan B. New, former Assistant United States Attorney, handled international money laundering cases, public corrup- tion issues and financial fraud while serving in a variety of frontline positions in the DOJ. He has considerable FCPA compliance and investigatory experience and has spoken and written extensively on these issues. He has advised clients
on legal and regulatory compliance issues and represented individuals, companies and professionals in connection with criminal investigations conducted by the DOJ, FBI and IRS. He successfully defended the U.S. in landmark NAFTA litiga- tion, was lead counsel for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in claims against the Islamic Republic of Iran and has defended numerous federal agencies in a wide range of lawsuits. Mr. New received a special commendation award for Outstanding Service in the Civil Division of the DOJ.
John W. Moscow
John W. Moscow has spearheaded investigations into some of the most complex frauds cases of the past 25 years. He has led investigations and conducted prosecutions involving money laundering and fraud at Bank of Credit and Commerce International; bank fraud in Caracas, Venezuela; the corrupt
A.R. Baron & Co., Inc., stock brokerage; the Beacon Hill money laundering case in New York; and theft by top Tyco, Inc., executives. He spent 30 years with the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where he served as the Chief of the Frauds Bureau and Deputy Chief of the Investigations Division.
While there, he investigated and prosecuted cases involving international bank and tax fraud, securities fraud, theft, fraud on governmental entities and fraud in money transfer systems. Mr. Moscow works frequently with bank and securities regulators at the state and federal level and abroad. He has extensive expe- rience in the international tracing of assets and is a leading authority on international corruption matters.
John J. Burke, Partner
John J. Burke has advised clients on FCPA compliance issues, particularly with respect to their dealings with India, China
and the Middle East and has developed FCPA compliance programs for multinational companies with operations around the world. He has developed clauses in distribution agreements for U.S. companies to reduce their exposure to FCPA liability through the actions of their foreign distributors. Additionally,
he has conducted FCPA and anti-corruption due diligence on companies being acquired by clients and assisted compa- nies in revising their FCPA compliance policies to incorporate requirements of the British Bribery Act 2010. Mr. Burke has
held numerous in-house FCPA compliance seminars for clients, which include financial institutions, health care companies, data processing companies, defense contractors and consumer product companies.
Edmund W. Searby, Partner
Edmund W. Searby is a former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Independent Counsel. He has conducted criminal investigations and internal investigations involving the FCPA, export controls and inter- national money laundering. In particular, he has conducted a number of FCPA investigations arising in the context of due diligence on potential mergers and acquisitions. He has also drafted and implemented FCPA, antitrust and general compli- ance policies for a number of FORTUNE 500 companies and other corporations. Mr. Searby has spoken and published articles on the FCPA and other anti-bribery issues. In recogni- tion for his work as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Searby received letters of commendation from the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI.
Gregory S. Saikin, Counsel
Gregory S. Saikin served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Texas, investigating and prosecuting individual and corporate targets for a variety of fraud, public corruption and money laundering violations. These investigations and prosecutions involved conduct occurring in Mexico, requiring close coordination with the FBI Border Liason Office and various Mexican law enforcement agencies. Mr. Saikin began his career in large law firms representing corporations, corporate officers and audit committees in connection with FCPA compliance and enforcement matters. He is an author and speaker on a wide range of white collar topics, including grand jury practice, corpo- rate charging policies and the federal sentencing guidelines. As a federal prosecutor, he received a number of awards, including the Integrity Award from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He was also recog- nized by the FBI Director for outstanding prosecutorial skills and by the U.S. Secret Service Director for superior contributions to law enforcement.
Francesca M. Harker, Associate
Francesca M. Harker obtained significant FCPA experience while conducting investigatory work in Mexico, China, India and Brazil to assist U.S. clients in ascertaining the nature and extent of alleged bribe payments made to foreign official by distributors, contractors and subsidiaries. She also has experi- ence structuring and implementing FCPA compliance programs in an effort to help clients avoid potential violations and lessen government sanctions, and has assisted clients in connection with criminal investigations conducted by the DOJ. During law school, Ms. Harker was an associate editor for the University of Michigan Law Review.
Kaitlyn Ferguson, Associate
Kaitlyn Ferguson works on a variety of litigation matters. She is also a member of the team overseeing the anti-corruption investigations and the enforcement of the consent decree of a local union. Kate’s professional interests include national security law, government investigations and international relations.
Maria Coor, Associate
María Coor represents clients in investigations involving Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance, with a focus on Latin America, and Brazil, in particular. She has represented corporations making voluntary disclosures to the
U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission and has also worked on international arbitra- tion matters. María is a native Spanish speaker, which, combined with her fluency in Portuguese, enables María to effectively work on international matters ranging from environ- mental cases to internal investigations. Maria has conducted internal investigation regarding FCPA compliance, including conducting witness interviews in Portuguese, training and managing document review teams in Brazil and the US,
and performing senior level review of critical documents in Portuguese. She has also assisted with company’s voluntary disclosure to DOJ and SEC and advised client on
Greer Smith, Staff Attorney
Greer Smith has conducted internal investigation regarding FCPA compliance, including conducting witness interviews in Portuguese, reviewing documents in Portuguese and English, working with document review team in Brazil, and performing senior level review of critical documents in Portuguese. She has also assisted with company’s voluntary disclosure to DOJ and SEC and advised client on FCPA compliance.
For more information about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or if you have questions about how FCPA may impact your business, please contact the following BakerHostetler attorneys or visit our website (http://www.bakerlaw.com/foreigncorruptpracticesact/):
John J. Carney
White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations firstname.lastname@example.org 212.589.4255
George A. Stamboulidis
White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations email@example.com 212.589.4211
Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide,
ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience. © 2014