Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

The growing importance of global anticorruption enforcement efforts was underscored this past week by the revelation of a cross-border investigation involving the French industrial giant Alstom and by developments in the continuing investigation involving Siemens. Moreover, the Siemens developments highlight the increasing significance of liabilities arising from anticorruption exposures for the D&O insurance industry.

First, in a May 6, 2008 article entitled “French Firm Scrutinized in Global Bribe Probe” (here), the Wall Street Journal reported that French and Swiss authorities are investigating whether officials acting on behalf of Alstom paid hundreds of millions of dollars between 1995 and 2003 to win contracts in Brazil, Venezuela, Singapore and Indonesia.

Then on May 9, 2008, German prosecutors announced that they will pursue a civil enforcement action against former Siemens chairman Heinrich von Pierer and several other (unnamed) former Siemens board members. (Refer here for background regarding the Siemens investigation). von Pierer served as Siemens’ chief executive from 1992 to 2005, and as its Chairman until April 2007. Prosecutors apparently have elected for the time at least not to pursue criminal charges against von Pierer.

According to a May 10, 2008 Wall Street Journal article (here), the company itself has also said that “it may seek financial compensation from former managers but didn’t name individuals.”

According to the Journal article about the Alstom investigation, the Alstom and Siemens investigations “suggest that Europe’s prosecutors have begun taking a tougher line on business practices that their U.S. counterparts have long treated as criminal.” It is not merely coincidental that these investigations are now emerging; they are in fact an outgrowth of relatively recent changes in the laws of both Germany and France.

For many years, under the laws of the two countries, corrupt payments were not only legal, but the amount of the payments were tax deductible. But both countries are signatories to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions. To implement the Convention, in 1999 Germany passed the German International Bribery Act. According to the Journal, “France outlawed bribery of foreign officials in July 2000.”

Both companies seem to have had difficulties adapting to the new legal prohibitions, as the conduct under investigation both preceded and followed the enactment of the new laws.

One particularly interesting aspect of the Alstom investigation is the way that the circumstances under review came to light. The investigation apparently arose as a result of an audit commissioned by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission of Tempus Privatbank AG, a small private bank. The audit uncovered documents concerning Alstom-related transactions that detailed the flow of about 20 million euros from Alstom to shell companies in Switzerland and Lichtenstein.

These investigations underscore the growing significance of cross-border anticorruption actions and highlight the fact that anticorruption efforts are no longer just a U.S. priority. Moreover, the potential exposures and liabilities are enormous. Siemens itself has already paid a fine of 201 mm euros.

There are also important implications arising from Siemens’ suggestion that it may pursue claims against its former managers. According to a May 5, 2008 Business Insurance article entitled “German Insurers Brace for Siemens Claim” (here), the company has notified its D&O insurers that it intends to file a claim under its D&O policies relating to the company’s antibribery related exposures. The article reports that the company carries D&O limits of 250 million euros. The article does not detail the specifics of the insurance claim or the matters for which the company claims or intends to claim coverage, so there is no way to assess the likelihood of the company’s eventual recovery under the policies.

It is far from certain that the company’s policies would actually cover the claimed amounts. But to the extent the policy’s limit is exhausted by the claims for coverage, it could, at least according to the Business Insurance article, have a substantial impact on the German market for D&O insurance.

The potential insurance implications from the developments in the Siemens investigation demonstrate the growing significance for the D&O insurance industry of the liabilities arising from anticorruption enforcement activity. As investigations like those involving Alstom and Siemens emerge and develop, and as litigation like that involving Alcoa (about which refer here) continues to arise, these issues necessarily will become a significant priority for companies and for D&O insurers. As I have previously suggested (here), anticorruption violations may well represent the “next corporate scandal.”

The May 9, 2008 Financial Times has an interesting editorial about the Alstom investigation and the expansion of anticorruption efforts, here.

Speakers’ Corner: On May 14, 2008, I will be speaking at the American Conference Institute’s D&O Liability Insurance Conference (refer to the agenda, here). I will be participating on a panel with my good friend Dan Bailey in a session entitled “Emerging Exposures Roundup: Fiduciary Litigation, Global Warming and More.”

Then on May 15, 2008, I will be in Toronto to participate in the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) Canadian Chapter’s educational event regarding the subprime crisis. Information about the Toronto event can be found here. The other panelists include Dr. Arturo Cifuentes of R.W. Pressprich & Co., Denis Durand of Jarislowski Fraser, and Robert Murray of Chubb.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a powerful affirmation of the rule of law, two justices of the U.K.’s High Court of Justice ruled in an April 10, 2008 opinion (here) that the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) must reconsider its decision to discontinue its bribery investigation into the award of a weapons contract between Saudi Arabia and BAE Systems plc. My prior post regarding the BAE investigation can be found here.

The SFO announced its decision to discontinue the investigation in December 14, 2006. The investigation had been ongoing for some time and had even withstood a prior attempt in October 2005 to have the investigation stopped. However, in July 2006, apparently when the SFO was about to obtain access to certain Swiss bank accounts, the British government received “an explicit threat made with the intent of halting the investigation.”

In the proceedings before the court, the government refused to characterize the threat, but the opinion quotes news reports that what happened was that Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz of al-Saud “went to Number 10” and told the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff to “get it stopped” or the military weapons contract ‘was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled.” (Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005, is now and in 2006 was the Secretary-General of the Saudi National Security Council.)

Following the July 2006 threat, an internal governmental review process unfolded, including high level consultations with the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia and others, culminating in a previously confidential December 8, 2006 memorandum by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair to his Attorney General Peter Goldsmith that “developments” had “given rise to the real and immediate risk of the collapse of UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation.” This, the Prime Minister said, would “have seriously negative consequences for the UK public interest in terms of both national security and our highest priority foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.” The government was particularly concerned with the Saudis continued counter-terrorism support, without which, it was feared, British lives could be in danger.

According to news reports (here), in August 2006 (that is, one month after Prince Bandar’s visit to “Number 10”), BAE won a $8.7 billion order from the Saudi government for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes, purportedly the latest component of the Al Yamamah arms deal, which dates back to 1985 and is the largest British export contract ever.  

The legal challenge to the decision to terminate the investigation was presented by two public interest groups, Corner House Research and the Campaign Against Arms Trade. They challenged the SFO’s decision to accede to the threat as “contrary to the constitutional principle of the rule of law,” as well as on other grounds. By contrast, the government argued, as the court summarized, that “the law is powerless to resist the specific, and as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom.” (The court said of this argument that “so bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage.”)

The April 10 opinion was written by Lord Justice Alan Moses. After a detailed review of the background to the SFO’s decision to terminate the investigation, the Court considered the claimants’ challenge, which Lord Justice Moses said did not question the government’s assessment of the national security risk. The threat that was the basis of the decision to terminate the investigation “was not simply directed at the company’s commercial, diplomatic and security interests, it was aimed at its legal system.”

The threat was made “with the specific intention of interfering with the course of the investigation.” The court noted that “had such a threat been made by one who was the subject of the criminal law of this country, he would risk being charged with an attempt to pervert the course of justice.” Surrender to such threats “merely encourages those with power, in a position of strategic and political importance, to repeat such threats.” The court concluded that “in yielding to the threat, the [SFO director] ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgment conferred on him by Parliament.” As a result, the court concluded that the submission to the threat was “unlawful.”

The court’s opinion reviews a host of other considerations, including in particular the U.K’s obligations as a signatory Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (which specifies that investigations “shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”). But the court’s essential conclusion is that the decision to terminate the investigation was contrary to the principles of the rule of law. “It is difficult,” the court said,” to identify any integrity on the role of the courts to uphold the rule of law if the courts are to abdicate in response to a threat from a foreign power.”

The full opinion is lengthy but it is well worth the read. The details surrounding the government’s consideration of how to respond to the threat are fascinating, and the court’s analysis of the legal considerations involved is thought-provoking, particularly its consideration of how imminent a threat of loss of life must be before a court might consider yielding. The inherent tension in the court’s decision arises from the fact that this case tests the limits of what any government might be willing to risk in resisting corruption; the lesson the court rejected is that if the corrupt forces are rich and powerful enough, they have nothing to fear from the force of law.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the investigation will go forward in the end; the court did not rule that the investigation must proceed, only that the December 2006 decision to terminate the investigation was unlawful. According to an April 11, 2008 article in The Guardian (here), “the high court will reconvene in a fortnight to decide what remedy to award the two groups of anti-corruption campaigners who brought the judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office decision to end the inquiry.”

As I have noted in a number of prior posts, most recently here, many governments around the world (including the U.S. government) are increasingly committed to enforcing anti-corruption laws. BAE is also being investigated in the U.S. and in Switzerland, and is only one of several current high-profile corruption investigations. The April 10 opinion underscores the seriousness of the issues involved, as well as the stakes. Courts will continue to grapple with the challenges these cases present, but it is important for companies to understand that the risks involved with corrupt practices include the threat of civil litigation, as I discussed here. BEA is in fact already the target of a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit in the United States. The growing threat of this type of litigation suggests why corrupt activity may represent the “next corporate scandal.”

Press coverage of the April 10 decision can be found here and here. The FCPA Blog’s post on the decision can be found here.

Subprime Litigation Webcast: On Friday April 11, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., I will be a panelist on a webcast sponsored by Risk Metrics on the topic “Subprime Litigation and Liability.” The panel will be moderated by Adam Savett, author of the Securities Litigation Watch blog, and will include defense attorney Darryl Rains, of the Morrison and Foerester firm, and plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lebovitch, of the firm Bernstein, Litowits, Berger & Grossman. Registration for the webcast (which is free) can be accessed here. Further information, including links to background papers by Risk Metrics, can be accessed on the Securities Litigation Watch, here.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Add Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley to the growing list of companies that have been sued in securities class action lawsuits by investors for allegedly deceptive representation in connection with the sale of auction rate securities. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ March 25, 2008 press release (here), the plaintiffs’ have filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Merrill Lynch and its asset management company on behalf of investors who purchased auction rate securities from Merrill Lynch between March 25, 2003 and February 13, 2008.  A copy of the complaint can be found here.

According to the press release, Merrill Lynch “offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds.” The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch failed to disclose that  

(1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Merrill Lynch continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a “freeze” of the market for auction rate securities would result.

According to news reports (here), plaintiffs also filed a separate but substantially similar lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, raising more or less the same allegations on behalf of a class of investors who purchased auction rate securities from Morgan Stanley during the same class period as proposed in the Merrill Lynch lawsuit. I have not located the Morgan Stanley complaint itself, but will add a link when I get a copy.

UPDATE: A copy of the plaintiffs' lawyers' March 25, 2008 press release announcing the Morgan Stanley auction rate securities lawsuit can be found here and a copy of the complaint can be found here.

These two new lawsuits join a group of similar lawsuits, all filed by the same law firm on behalf of auction rate securities investors, against Deutsche Bank, Wachovia, TD Ameritrade and UBS. The law firm’s webpage describing these various lawsuits can be found here.

With the addition of these two new subprime-related securities class action lawsuits, my running tally of subprime related securities lawsuits, which can be accessed here, now stands at 59, of which 21 have been filed in 2008. Two of these 59 represent lawsuits brought on behalf of investors against mortgage-backed asset securitizers, six are class action lawsuits on behalf of auction rate securities investors, two are brought on behalf of mutual fund investors, and the remaining 49 of which are brought on behalf of public company shareholders.

Subprime Litigation Wave Hits Regions: Birmingham, Alabama-based Regions Financial Corporation has been hit with a couple of different subprime-related lawsuits as the subprime wave continues to spread beyond New York, California, and Florida, the states where the subprime litigation originally was concentrated.

First, according to a March 25, 2008 Birmingham News article (here), the Catholic Medical Mission Board, a Regions shareholder, has filed a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit against Regions, as nominal defendant, and certain Regions directors and officers, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the extent of Regions’ lending exposure to residential homebuilders, which permitted company insiders to sell their shares in company stock at inflated prices. According to the news report, the complaint alleges that "Regions Financial's stock was artificially inflated because the defendants directed the company to hide the true extent of its subprime exposure.’

The derivative complaint (which can be found here) asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of Section 10(b) of the ’34 Act.

Second, Regions has also been hit with a lawsuit filed under ERISA on behalf of its participants in the Regions defined contribution plan. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The complaint alleges that the offered plan participants Regions stock and investment options in Regions Morgan Keegan funds “when it was imprudent to do so.” The complaint also alleges that the investment in Regions stock and the Regions Morgan Keegan funds was maintained “when it was no longer prudent to do so.”  The complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that these investments were imprudent because of Regions and the funds heavy investment in or vulnerability to subprime mortgage investments, loans and securities. The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to communicate the risks of investing in the plan and also failed to communicate conflicts of interest.

As noted on my running tally of subprime related litigation (which can be accessed here), with the addition of the Regions ERISA litigation, my running tally of subprime-related ERISA lawsuits now stands at 11.

I have not been keeping a running tally of subprime-related derivative litigation (basically because the primarily state court oriented litigation is hard to track), but there has been substantial subprime related derivative litigation, involving, among others, Bear Stearns, American International Group, and Countrywide.

Special thanks to alert reader Rob Lichenstein for the links to the two Regions lawsuits and the Birmingham News article.

About the Bear Stearns Deal: If as I do you find many of the articles discussing the updated Bear Stearns deal confusing, you will want to read a couple of interesting posts on the Conglomerate blog, that provide insight into a couple of points about the revised deal that have received significant press attention.

First, there has been a great deal of discussion in the press about the possibility that the improved buyout offer may have resulted in part from drafting errors in the initial deal documents. BYU law professor Gordon Smith deconstructs this issue in a detailed Conglomerate blog post here (here), with helpful citations and cross-references to other blogs. Smith’s analysis of the differences between the original and the revised deal documents raise some interesting questions about what J.P. Morgan seems to have sought by offering revised terms. Bottom line, in exchange for the improved merger price, J.P. Morgan has eliminated the provisions that would have kept the deal open for a full year, and also obtained a 39.5% ownership interest as a means to try to ensure that the deal is concluded.

Second, and with respect to that 39.5% ownership interest transfer, Smith has a separate post on Conglomerate (here), that explores the Delaware case law behind the 39.5% interest and the limitations on share transfers to lock in shareholder merger approvals. As Professor Smith’s post notes, there is no automatic cutoff under Delaware law whereby a company can sell up to 40% of itself without shareholder approval, and suggestions to that effect in the mainstream media are “what is known in the law biz as ‘wrong.’” Practitioners have evolved the 40% rule of thumb, but “none of this has been tested in court.”

More About the FCPA: Regular readers know that I have frequently commented (most recently here) on the growing importance of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement proceedings and follow on civil litigation. Two recent publications provide significant additional information on this topic.

First, a March 25, 2008 Law.com article entitled “Today, No Bribe is Too Small” (here), takes a look at the expanding reach of enforcement activities. As the title suggests, the article looks at some seemingly small corrupt transactions that have attracted regulatory attention. The article states that “it seems that no bribe is too small to earn the attention of the department.” The article also focuses on regulatory actions that have been taken by middlemen and third party contractors, and how those seemingly remote actors’ actions have come back to haunt the sponsoring company.

Second, in a much more detailed look at recent FCPA enforcement activity, Porter Wright attorney Tom Gorman has recently posted a running series on the issues involved in recent FCPA regulatory actions on his SEC Actions blog. The most recent post can be found here. Taken collectively, these posts present an excellent overview of the current state of FCPA regulatory actions.

Finally, readers who recall my recent post (here) about the civil litigation arising from potentially problematic activities involving Alcoa’s operations in Bahrain will be interested to note that the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation of the activities, and in that connection has asked for the entry of stay in the civil proceedings,  as discussed in a March 21, 2008 Wall Street Journal article entitled “U.S. Opens Alcoa Bribery Probe” (here).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In prior posts (most recently here), I have commented on the growing threat of follow-on shareholder litigation ensuing in the wake of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions. A lawsuit recently filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania represents an entirely different kind of threat arising from allegations of foreign corrupt activities, in the form of a civil action brought directly against the alleged wrongdoer(s) by the alleged victims of the corrupt activity, without any preceding FCPA enforcement action.

On February 27, 2008, Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. ("Alba") filed a lawsuit against Alcoa, an Alcoa affiliate, and two individuals, one of whom was an officer of an Alcoa affiliate. Alba (owned by an entity in which the Bahrain government has a 70% ownership interest), alleges that the defendants engaged in a 15-year conspiracy involving overcharging, fraud, and bribery of Bahraini officials. A copy of the complaint can be found here. Alba is in the aluminum smelting business, and it has depended since 1990 on Alcoa affiliates for its supply of alumina, a key ingredient in the production of aluminum.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 1993, over $2 billion in payments were funneled through companies (located in Singapore, Guernsey, Switzerland and elsewhere) owned or controlled by a Canadian businessman of Jordanian descent named Victor Dahdaleh, who is named as a defendant in the complaint. A portion of these payments were secretly directed to one or more (unnamed) Bahraini government officials as part of an alleged conspiracy to cause Alba to cede a substantial portion of its equity to Alcoa, to pay inflated prices for alumina, and to corrupt the integrity of senior Bahraini government officials.

A front-page February 28, 2008 Wall Street Journal article describing the complaint (here) states that the lawsuit emerged from Bahrain’s own effort "to root out misbehavior." The Journal also reports that last year Bahrain retained Kroll Associates, which "had uncovered cases of corruption in its state-owned enterprises, and numerous individuals had been arrested."

The FCPA prohibits corrupt payments to foreign officials, but, as pointed out in a post on The FCPA Blog (here) commenting on the Alba case, "there is no private right of action under the FCPA." So enforcement of the FCPA is exclusively the province of the Department of Justice and the SEC. But as the Department of Justice notes in its Lay Person’s Guide to the FCPA, "conduct that violates the antibribery provisions of the FCPA may also give rise to a private cause of action for treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or to actions under other federal or state laws." Alba’s complaint, in fact, seeks to recover damages from the defendants based on their alleged violations of RICO, conspiracy to violate RICO, and for fraud.

The Alba complaint underscores the civil liability exposure that may potentially arise from foreign corrupt practices. While I have previously emphasized the potential threat of lawsuit filed by shareholders against company management as a follow-on to government FCPA enforcement actions, the Alba lawsuit illustrates the threat of direct civil litigation based on foreign corrupt activity without any prior enforcement activity.

This kind of litigation may represent a significant corporate threat for companies engaged in business in countries whose cultures encourage or even seemingly compel this type of corrupt activity. This threat may also extend beyond the corporation and its corporate affiliates to individuals, as well. Only one of the individual defendants named in the Alba lawsuit appears to be an officer of an Alcoa affiliate, but the complaint does also specifically allege that Alcoa’s Chairman and CEO traveled to Bahrain in connection with Alcoa’s efforts to obtain an equity ownership position in Alba. The complaint alleges that this effort was corrupted by the bribery-induced intervention of a Bahraini government official.

Individual directors and offices who find themselves the target of corruption-based civil litigation may face challenges in securing insurance protection in connection with these allegations. Certainly, a determination of liability for the kinds of corrupt conduct alleged in the Alba complaint could run afoul of the typical D & O liability policy’s conduct exclusions. In addition, some D & O policies still retain a commissions and payments exclusions specifically calculated to preclude liability for improper payments. However, individual director or officer defendants could have a strong basis on which to argue that their defense expenses incurred in connection with this kind of litigation should be covered. They could even have a basis on which to try to argue that settlement amounts, in the absence of an actual finding of liability, ought to be covered.

With respect to the corporate entity defendants in these kinds of lawsuits, the picture is slightly different. The typical public company D & O policy provides entity coverage only for claims based on alleged violations of the securities laws. None of the allegations in the Alba complaint arise under the securities laws, so there would not appear to be coverage under the typical public company D & O policy, even for defense expense. Even were entity coverage to extend beyond securities claims (as is the case for many private company D & O policies), the conduct exclusions and any applicable commissions and payments exclusion would preclude coverage for damages imposed on the basis of an adjudication of liability

But in any event, given the increasing globalization of trade and the increasing significance being given to anticorruption efforts in many jurisdictions, the possibility exists for further civil litigation based on alleged corrupt activity, even in the absence of prior enforcement actions. This litigation threat represents another way in which corrupt activity exposure may possibly represent, as I recently wrote, the "next corporate scandal."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In prior posts (most recently here), I have discussed the growing threat that Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement may present for companies doing business overseas. This trend became even more pronounced in 2007, and at least one legal commentator has suggested (here) that the increasing FCPA enforcement trends raise the possibility that FCPA violations "may be this year's corporate crime of the century."

The one thing that is clear is that FCPA enforcement activity is escalating. As discussed in the January 28, 2008 Fenwick & West memorandum entitled "The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: The Next Corporate Scandal?" (here), 2007 was "a watershed year for FCPA enforcement." Among other things, the memo notes that that "the number of enforcement actions brought by the DoJ and the SEC doubled compared with the number brought in 2006."

The memo also notes that "public companies disclosed over 50 pending government investigations." In addition, the DoJ and the SEC imposed the largest combined civil and criminal fines in history in 2007, the total fines of $44 million imposed against Baker Hughes and its subsidiaries (as discussed in my prior post, here).

There are a number of important trends driving this increased FCPA enforcement. Obviously the globalization of business activity provides an important context, but globalization alone does not explain the increased enforcement. The enforcement activity is being driven by a number of trends and patterns.

First, the DoJ and the SEC have developed a practice of targeting specific industries, through an industry-wide investigation. For example, a January 25, 2008 Sidley Austin memo entitled "FCPA Enforcement Trends During 2007" (here) notes that the authorities have targeted "sales and marketing practices of companies in the medical device industry in Europe." A January 24, 2008 Jenner & Block memorandum entitled "Recent Enforcement Activity Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" (here) also cites the recent enforcement actions involving the "companies participating in the U.N. Iraq Oil for Food program." The Fenwick & West memo cited above also notes that the FCPA is now "being actively enforced against technology companies."

Second, the authorities have targeted companies doing business in countries where bribery is part of the local business culture. The Jenner & Block memo notes that the authorities have "continued to press enforcement as to companies doing business in Nigeria." Business activities in China have also drawn scrutiny, which is certainly a challenge given that many companies are finding it indispensible to have a China strategy.

Third, the U.S. authorities have shown an increased willingness to cooperate with foreign governments in joint investigations, even, the Jenner & Block memo notes, where the target companies "are already the subject of law enforcement investigation or sanction in their home country." The most prominent example of this latter phenomenon is the current investigation involving Siemens (which I discussed in prior posts, here and here). Another example is the investigation of BAE Systems (which has been surrounded by some significant controversy, as discussed here).

Fourth, increased M & A activity has led to the discovery and disclosure to the authorities of a number of FCPA violations. The Sidley & Austin memo referenced above cites the entry of Delta & Pine into a $300,000 FCPA settlement following its merger with Monsanto (refer here) and York International's FCPA settlement following its merger with Johnson Controls, whereby York agreed (here) to a $10 million criminal penalty, a $2 million civil penalty, and the disgorgement of $10 million profit.

The Sidley & Austin memo notes that "acquisition due diligence is an essential program, and the failure to adequately assess potential liabilities can result in serious consequences." The Fenwick & West memo notes that "FCPA issues can be a major sticking point in negotiations with the acquiring party, often causing delay of the deal or a change in the price terms."

Fifth, as a result of changing priorities and increased resources, the authorities are no longer dependant on self-reporting alone as the means by which FCPA violations are identified. In recent year, the combination of the increased self-scrutiny SOX requires and corporations' desire to obtain cooperation credits have led companies to self-report, providing the authorities with the bases for many of the FCPA enforcement investigations. But, as the Jenner & Block memo notes, "the Government is increasingly interested in developing cases affirmatively, without relying on disclosures." Both the DoJ and the SEC have increased their staffing in this area, and the agencies have said repeatedly said publicly that they will be more "proactive."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks