In a SEC cease and desist order filed on August 11, Key Energy Services, Inc., a Houston-based provider of rig-based oil well services, agreed to disgorge $5 million to settle charges that the company violated the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA. According to the order, from August 2010 through at least April 2013, Key Energy’s Mexican subsidiary paid bribes of at least $229,000 to a contract employee at Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the Mexican state-owned oil and gas company. In exchange, the subsidiary received Pemex non-public information, advice and assistance on contracts with Pemex, and lucrative amplifications or amendments to those contracts. The funds were allegedly funneled through an entity purporting to provide consulting services, but for which there was no evidence of appropriate authorization of the relationship, and no supporting documentation regarding the purported consulting work performed. According to the SEC, the subsidiary improperly recorded the transfers to the consulting firm as legitimate business expenses, which were consolidated into Key Energy’s books and records. Key Energy allegedly failed to implement and maintain sufficient internal controls, including within the subsidiary relating to interactions with Pemex officials, and failed to respond to indications that the subsidiary was improperly using consultants.

It is notable that Key Energy was not required to pay a civil fine in addition to disgorgement. The SEC identified three reasons for accepting Key Energy’s offer of settlement and not imposing a separate civil penalty. First, the SEC praised Key Energy for cooperating with and assisting in its investigation. Key Energy was first contacted by the SEC in January 2014 concerning possible FCPA violations. In April 2014, Key Energy was informed by employees of its subsidiary of possible bribes, at which time the company reported the allegations to the SEC and “undertook a broad internal investigation and risk assessment of [its] international operations.” The SEC specifically noted that, “to the extent the internal investigation identified additional issues of concern, Key Energy provided updates to the Commission staff.”

Second, the SEC considered not only the “cooperation Key Energy afforded to the Commission staff,” but also the “remedial acts undertaken by [the company].” The SEC noted that Key Energy, during its internal review, “promptly and simultaneously undertook significant remedial measures including … a renovation and enhancement of [its] compliance program.” Specific remedial measures included (1) stronger vendor oversight, (2) enhanced financial controls, (3) increased training of all international employees, (4) developing and/or reviewing policies and procedures pertaining to the FCPA, codes of business conduct, and more, and (5) a coordinated wind-down and exit from all markets outside of North America, including a commitment to exit Mexico by the end of 2016.

Finally, “in determining the disgorgement amount and not to impose a penalty,” the SEC “considered Key Energy’s current financial condition and its ability to maintain necessary cash reserves to fund its operations and meet its liabilities.” This third justification indicates the SEC is not only aware of the current financial strains within the oil and gas services sector, but is uninterested in unnecessarily putting companies out of business. It is also possible that Key Energy’s cooperation and remediation, coupled with its tenuous financial condition, factored into the DOJ’s decision in April to close its investigation of the same conduct without bringing charges.