DOCSLIB.ORG

FCPA Digest Jan 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FCPA Digest Jan 2011 FCPA Digest Cases and Review Releases Relating to Bribes to Foreign Officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 JANUARY 2011 FCPA Digest of Cases and Review Releases Relating to Bribes to Foreign Officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (January 20, 2011) Shearman & Sterling LLP Copyright © 2011 Shearman & Sterling LLP. As used herein “Shearman & Sterling” refers to Shearman & Sterling LLP, a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Editorial Board Editor In Chief: Philip Urofsky Washington, DC London +1.202.508.8060 [email protected] Managing Editors: Amanda Kosonen and Ashley Walker Contributing Editor: Jill Aberbach Digest Contributors: Jill Aberbach, Jeanetta Craigwell-Graham, Teddy Flo, Helene Gogadze, Josh Goodman, Chris Greer, Amanda Kosonen, Grace Lee, Mario Meeks, Marina Moon, Jennifer Rimm, and Ashley Walker. Founding Editor: Danforth Newcomb New York +1.212.848.4184 [email protected] Past Contributors: Andrew Agor, Carolyn Bannon, Rachel Barnes, Parth Chanda, Bryan Dayton, Saamir Elshihabi, Andrew Giddings, Melissa Godwin, William Hauptman, Pasha Hsieh, Mary Isernhagen, Joshua Johnston, Meaghan Kelly, Michael Kieval, Michael Krauss, Debra Laboschin, Marlon Layton, Christopher Le Mon, Tal Machnes, Natalie Marjancik, Bronwen Mason, Nicola Painter, Judith Reed, Matthew Reynolds, Brian Scibetta, Jeena Shah, Rachel Schipper, Natalie Waites, Elizabeth Weiss, and Gregory Wyckoff. Board of Advisors: Stephen Fishbein Paula Howell Anderson Patrick D. Robbins Richard Kelly New York New York San Francisco London +1.212.848.4424 +1.212.848.7727 +1.415.616.1210 +44.20.7655.5788 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Jo Rickard Richard Kreindler Markus S. Rieder London Frankfurt Munich +44.20.7655.5781 +49.69.9711.1420 +49.89.23888.2119 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] This memorandum is intended only as a general discussion of these issues. It should not be regarded as legal advice. We would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific situations if desired. For more information on the topics covered in this issue, please contact Philip Urofsky, Danforth Newcomb, or members of the Board of Advisors. Copyright © 2011 Shearman & Sterling LLP. As used herein “Shearman & Sterling” refers to Shearman & Sterling LLP, a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Table of Contents Page A. Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement ..................................................................... i B. Foreign Bribery Criminal Prosecution under the FCPA................................................................ 1 C. Foreign Bribery Civil Actions Instituted by the Department of Justice under the FCPA ........... 178 D. SEC Actions Relating to Foreign Bribery ................................................................................. 184 E. Department of Justice FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases..................................................... 312 F. Ongoing Investigations under the FCPA.................................................................................. 367 G. Pre-FCPA Prosecutions........................................................................................................... 451 H. Parallel Litigation ..................................................................................................................... 454 I. Index of Matters....................................................................................................................... 523 FCPA Case Digest | Copyright © 2010 Shearman & Sterling LLP A. Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement FCPA Case Digest | Copyright © 2010 Shearman & Sterling LLP A. Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement Table of Contents Page A Record Year ................................................................................................................................. i Corporate Prosecutions.................................................................................................... i Individual Prosecutions .................................................................................................iii Enforcement Strategies ....................................................................................................................v Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................... v Foreign Companies......................................................................................................... v Monitors ....................................................................................................................... vii Industry Sweeps ..........................................................................................................viii Inconsistent Theories of Parent Liability ...................................................................... ix Statutory Interpretation ....................................................................................................................x Facilitation Payments ..................................................................................................... x Instrumentalities ............................................................................................................ xi The Business Nexus ....................................................................................................xiii Guidance on Compliance Programs...............................................................................................xv Compliance Monitoring ............................................................................................... xv Internal Controls.......................................................................................................... xvi Compliance Responsibilities .....................................................................................xviii Gifts and Entertainment.............................................................................................xviii International and U.S. Legislation and Regulations .................................................................... xix U.K. Bribery Act ......................................................................................................... xix U.S. Legislation and Regulations................................................................................. xx Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement | Copyright © 2011 Shearman & Sterling LLP A. Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement After a relative lull in 2009 in large corporate enforcement actions, 2010 saw a resurgence in corporate cases against large corporations, with over $1.7 billion in total penalties. Strangely, however, with very few exceptions, most of these cases have involved non-U.S. companies. Clearly, U.S. companies are not in the clear, but the DOJ’s focus in the short-term seems to be very much on putting pressure on non-U.S. companies to comply with global anti-corruption agreements, particularly when those companies’ home countries are less than aggressive in enforcing their own corruption laws. At the same time, as reflected in the charges against 22 members of the military and law enforcement industry (the “SHOT-show” cases), the TSKJ and Panalpina matters, the tobacco wholesalers matters, and the pharma initiative, the U.S. government clearly is pursuing high-profile enforcement actions hoping to encourage compliance in entire industry sectors. The cases that were brought in 2010 provide valuable, albeit not uncontroversial, guidance from the authorities as to the scope and meaning of the statute. In particular, the Panalpina cases provided insight into which types of payments the government believed fell outside the facilitation exception. The Alcatel-Lucent matter offered guidance as to the meaning of the government “instrumentality.” Finally, the Technip and Snamprogetti cases provided confirmation that the government will use “correspondent account” jurisdiction as well as conspiracy law to reach foreign companies engaged in corrupt conduct. On the other side of the coin, some of the government’s cases appear to blur the lines or muddy the waters when it comes to the limits of the statute. In several cases, such as Pride International, Panalpina, and Royal Dutch Shell, the theories used to hold parents accountable for the acts of subsidiaries and vice versa appear to be unclear. In others, such as Pride International and Tidewater, the connection of the alleged conduct to “obtaining or retaining business,” a critical element of the statute was not pleaded or, worse, was pled in a way that suggests that virtually any bribe that improves a company’s profitability is sufficient – a result that is not consistent with established precedent and Total SEC/DOJ Matters Initiated: 2002-2010 the language of the statute. 40 DOJ 35 In the next year, we expect to see a number of trials SEC 28 30 of individuals as well as additional corporate matters. 21 32 25 As always, these matters may well bring some clarity 20 16 to some of these existing unsettled areas of the law. 15 7 6 19 10 17 A Record Year 11 5 4 3 9 5 6 7 3 3 0 1 Corporate Prosecutions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 In terms of gross numbers, in 2010 the DOJ charged or otherwise alleged (e.g., with deferred prosecutions) FCPA Case Digest
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Gulf War's Afterlife
    The Scholar THE GULF WAR’S AFTERLIFE: DILEMMAS, MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, AND THE POST-COLD WAR ORDER UNDONE SAMUEL HELFONT 25 The Gulf War’s Afterlife: Dilemmas, Missed Opportunities, and the Post-Cold War Order Undone The Gulf War is often remembered as a “good war,” a high- tech conflict that quickly and cleanly achieved its objectives. Yet, new archival evidence sheds light on the extended fallout from the war and challenges this neat narrative. The Gulf War left policymakers with a dilemma that plagued successive U.S. administrations. The war helped create an acute humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and the United States struggled to find a way to contain a still recalcitrant Saddam Hussein while alleviating the suffering of innocent Iraqis. The failure of American leaders to resolve this dilemma, despite several chances to do so, allowed Saddam’s regime to drive a wedge into the heart of the American-led, post-Cold War order. While in the short term the war seemed like a triumph, over the years its afterlife caused irreparable harm to American interests. n June 1991, nearly 5 million onlookers en- American politics. Both the Clinton and Obama ad- thusiastically welcomed American troops ministrations admired the way President George returning home from the Gulf War as they H. W. Bush handled the conflict.5 Despite some marched in a ticker-tape parade through handwringing about Saddam Hussein remaining in NewI York City’s “Canyon of Heroes.”1 This image power and the fact that there was no World War of the Gulf War as a triumph has proved endur- II-style surrender, the conflict is still remembered ing.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Report
    2020 ANNUAL REPORT SHERWOOD, WEST VIRGINIA MPLX I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO Fellow Unitholders, an MPLX joint venture that is connected to nearly 20 gas processing plants in the Delaware Basin of far West Texas and More than any other year, 2020 highlighted the strength, stability southeastern New Mexico. The system entered commercial and resiliency of our underlying businesses, with the company service earlier in 2021. Through another project, we increased achieving several significant milestones despite the unprecedented challenges and disruptions created by the global COVID-19 fractionation capacity at our Hopedale facility in Ohio. The pandemic. We generated positive excess cash flow for the full 80,000 barrel-per-day expansion has allowed the facility to year after self-funding our total capital investments and our reach record fractionation volumes of 320,000 barrels per day. distributions to unitholders, and we achieved this sooner than We also continued to advance the Smithburg 1 Processing our original target of 2021. This accomplishment provided us the Plant project, which will add 200 million cubic feet per day of financial flexibility to begin implementing a board-authorized natural gas processing capacity for the Marcellus Basin when repurchase program of up to $1 billion in outstanding publicly traded it comes online in 2021. common units, and we completed the repurchase of approximately During 2021, we intend to continue exercising strict capital $33 million in units during the fourth quarter of 2020. discipline with a growth capital outlook of $800 million, focusing In addition, we were able to increase our adjusted EBITDA (a) for on projects expected to deliver the highest returns and support the year by $100 million to $5.2 billion and grow total distributable the generation of excess cash flow.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust
    Federal Trade Commission TIMOTHY J. MURIS Chairman MOZELLE W. THOMPSON Commissioner ORSON SWINDLE Commissioner THOMAS B. LEARY Commissioner PAMELA JONES HARBOUR Commissioner Bureau of Economics Luke M. Froeb Director Mark W. Frankena Deputy Director for Antitrust Paul A. Pautler Deputy Director for Consumer Protection Timothy A. Deyak Associate Director for Competition Analysis Pauline M. Ippolito Associate Director for Special Projects Robert D. Brogan Assistant Director for Antitrust Louis Silvia Assistant Director for Antitrust Michael G. Vita Assistant Director for Antitrust Denis A. Breen Assistant Director for Economic Policy Analysis Gerard R. Butters Assistant Director for Consumer Protection This is a report of the Bureau of Economics of the Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed in this report are those of the staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. The Commission has voted to authorize staff to publish this report. Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the Bureau of Economics under the supervision of David T. Scheffman, former Director; Mary T. Coleman, former Deputy Director and Mark Frankena, Deputy Director; and Louis Silvia, Assistant Director. Bureau economists who researched and drafted this report were Jay Creswell, Jeffrey Fischer, Daniel Gaynor, Geary Gessler, Christopher Taylor, and Charlotte Wojcik. Bureau Research Analysts who worked on this project were Madeleine McChesney, Joseph Remy, Michael Madigan, Paul Golaszewski, Matthew Tschetter, Ryan Toone, Karl Kindler, Steve Touhy, and Louise Sayers. Bureau of Economics staff also acknowledge the review of drafts and many helpful comments and suggestions from members of the staff of the Bureau of Competition, in particular Phillip L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Oil in Venezuela: a Decision-Making Analysis of PDVSA’S Internationalisation Policy
    1 The politics of oil in Venezuela: a decision-making analysis of PDVSA’s internationalisation policy A PhD thesis by C&sar E. Baena London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Government 1 9 9 7 UMI Number: U615175 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615175 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 7m £ .s £ S f 7^S7 5%uUl^> 2 ABSTRACT The high degree of international vertical integration achieved by the Venezuelan state oil enterprise, Petr6leos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), has placed it among the most important oil multinationals (MNs). The policy of creating downstream outlets through the establishment of foreign direct investments (FDIs) in the form of refinery assets was given the term of ‘internationalisation’. Besides enabling PDVSA to expand market share and gain access to specific know-how, the internationalisation policy provided industry policy-makers with a way of maximising corporate decision-making freedom, farther away from the government's financial demands and Congress meddling. Venezuela offers a unique case and thus a fertile ground for the study of oil policymaking processes.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Report Annual Report
    2017 2019 ANNUAL REPORT ANNUAL REPORT 74377.indd 1 3/9/20 10:52 AM Table of Contents Cover: Todochi Wells, Chairman Letter 1 terminal manager at MPLX’s Champaign, Illinois facility Financial Highlights 6 Safety and Environmental Stewardship 8 Board of Directors 10 Company Offi cers 11 Key Financial and Operational Results 12 Reconciliation Data 13 MPLX operations as of Dec. 31, 2019 MPLX Owned and Part-Owned Glossary of Terms Light Product Terminals MPLX Owned Asphalt/Heavy Oil bbl: barrels Terminals bcf/d: billion cubic feet per day MPC Refi neries bpd: barrels per day Caverns cf/d: cubic feet per day EBITDA: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation MPC/MPLX Pipelines (a) and amortization MPLX Refi ning Logistics Assets GP: general partner MPLX Gathering System IPO: initial public offering of units MPLX Owned Marine Facility LP: limited partner MarkWest: MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., a wholly Natural Gas Processing Complex (b) owned subsidiary of MPLX LP acquired in December 2015 mbpd: thousand barrels per day Note: Illustrative representation of asset map. MLP: master limited partnership (a) Includes MPC/MPLX owned and operated lines, mmcf/d: million cubic feet per day MPC/MPLX interest lines operated by others and MPC: Marathon Petroleum Corporation MPC/MPLX operated lines owned by others. (b) Includes MPLX owned and operated natural MPL: Marathon Pipe Line LLC gas processing complexes NGL: Natural gas liquids 74377.indd 2 3/9/20 10:52 AM MPLX I 2019 ANNUAL REPORT I 1 FROM THE CHAIRMAN Fellow unitholders, It’s a pleasure for me to report that MPLX fi nished 2019 with strong operational and fi nancial results.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 4:09-Cv-03884 Document 150 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/11 Page 1 of 64
    Case 4:09-cv-03884 Document 150 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/11 Page 1 of 64 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ODELIA ABECASSIS, et al.,§ § Plaintiffs, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-3884 § OSCAR S. WYATT, JR., et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND OPINION This suit arises out of terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2003. The plaintiffs are Americans injured in the attacks and their relatives. The defendants are companies and individuals involved in the oil and gas business. The plaintiffs allege that these defendants purchased oil from Iraq and made payments that violated the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The Program required anyone buying oil from Iraq to place the purchase money into an escrow account monitored by the United Nations. Funds from this account could only be used for humanitarian purposes. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants were involved in buying Iraqi oil with payments that included illegal kickbacks to a secret bank account in Jordan controlled by Saddam Hussein. The plaintiffs allege that Hussein used funds from this account to provide money and services to Palestinian terrorist organizations and to make payments to the families of suicide bombers and others killed in carrying out the terrorist attacks. According to the plaintiffs, such payments were important in recruiting terrorists. Case 4:09-cv-03884 Document 150 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/11 Page 2 of 64 The original complaint included 193 plaintiffs, all of whom alleged violations of the Torture Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”).1 Most of these plaintiffs were aliens who also asserted claims arising under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”),2 which permits aliens to sue for some violations of customary international law.
    [Show full text]
  • See Full Genealogy of Major U.S. Refiners
    Genealogy of major U.S. refiners 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Amoco BPb SOHIO 12/98 BP 1/89 BP 4/00 12/88a 4/08c BP-Husky Refining LLC (jv) ARCO Husky Mapco Williams 3/98 Williams 3/03d 5/04h 7/94e 12/98f 7/07i Clark Refining Premcorg 10/11j Orion Valero 9/05 Diamond Shamrock Ultramar Diamond Shamrock (UDS) 12/96 Valero p q 9/00l 7/03 6/10 12/10 Ultramark 9/97 UDS Total North America n 6/00 Valero m 12/01 Valero 10/98 Valero PBF Energy Salomon (Basis) 5/97 Valero 6/01 Huntway 3/11x 6/01o Coastal r 12/88 Pacific Refining (jv) 1/01s El Paso 9/89t 8/94u 1/04w Sun Company Sunocov Carlyle Groupy See notes, footnotes, and source notes below. Genealogy of major U.S. refiners (continued) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Ashland 2/13bb z Marathon Ashland Petroleum (MAP) (jv) Rock Island 1/98 6/05z 11/89 USX (Marathon) Marathon Oil Marathon Petroleumaa USX (Marathon) Lyondell LyondellBasellee dd dd 7/93 Lyondell-CITGO (jv) 8/06 CITGOcc CITGO Hovensa (jv)gg 10/98ff Amerada Hess Star Enterprise (jv) 11/88hh 7/98ii Motiva Enterprises (jv) Texaco Equilon Enterprises (jv) jj 1/98 ll Shell Oil 3/02 Shell Oil 4/93kk Deer Park Refining (jv) mm nn oo pp qq Tesoro 8/98 9/01 5/02 5/07 6/13 Tesoro 5/98 BHP Petroleum 11/99rr Frontier Frontier 11/99 Wainco 6/03ss 6/09tt 12/09uu 7/11 Holly Frontier Holly See notes, footnotes, and source notes below.
    [Show full text]
  • Feb. 9-15, 2021 Further Reproduction Or Distribution Is Subject to Original Copyright Restrictions
    Weekly Media Report – Feb. 9-15, 2021 Further reproduction or distribution is subject to original copyright restrictions. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… RESEARCH: 1. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: Teaching an Old Spacecraft New Tricks to Continue Exploring the Moon (SciTech Daily 14 Feb 21) … Bill Steigerwald NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft has far exceeded its planned mission duration, revealing that the Moon holds surprises: ice deposits that could be used to support future lunar exploration, the coldest places in the solar system in permanently shadowed regions at the lunar poles, and that it is an active world that is shrinking, generating moonquakes and changing in front of our eyes. LRO has mapped the surface in exquisite detail, returning millions of images of a starkly beautiful lunar landscape and paving the way for future human missions under NASA’s Artemis program… For LRO’s new speedometer to operate properly, the star trackers need to maintain an unobstructed view of the stars, which can be blocked by the Earth or Moon, or the glare of the Sun. Otherwise, it is impossible to determine the orientation or estimate the rotational speed of the spacecraft. Ensuring that the star trackers are always unobstructed during science maneuvers made many science observations that could be easily done with the MIMU impossible to perform without it. To reclaim these otherwise lost opportunities, Goddard, NASA’s Engineering Safety Center (NESC) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterey, California, teamed up once again in their long history of cooperative research to rapidly develop a collection of new, revolutionary methods to enable LRO to keep exploring the Moon to its fullest ability.
    [Show full text]
  • Reserves Overbooking: the Problem We Are Finally Going to Talk About
    Reserves Overbooking: The Problem We Are Finally Going To Talk About Grant T. Olsen, W. John Lee, and Thomas A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M University Summary create even greater potential for reserves overstatements than in Oil and gas reserves estimates that honor disclosure require- the past. ments of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Therefore, the magnitude and nature of recent alleged overstate- are critically important in the international oil and gas industry. ment cases, relative unfamiliarity with the SEC’s inner workings, Unfortunately, a number of exploration and production (E&P) and the SEC’s new reporting requirements together have created companies have allegedly overstated and subsequently written a need to discuss openly reserves disclosures and reserves over- down certain reserves volumes in recent years. In some cases, the statements. Overstatements are not confined to particular reserves consequences have been quite adverse. We document some of these categories, asset types or locations, or filer size. However, over- cases of reserves overstatements and summarize the consequences. statements are most likely to occur within the proved undeveloped Reserves write downs are of obvious interest to numerous groups (PUD) category. Reserves write downs can create nearly instanta- involved in the reserves estimation process and outcome, includ- neous value destruction for shareholders. A study of case histories ing estimators, managers, investors, creditors, and regulators. indicates that significant corporate and/or individual penalties may The magnitude and nature of recent overstatement cases, relative be associated with overstatements, along with the potential for unfamiliarity with the SEC’s inner workings, and the SEC’s new class-action lawsuits.
    [Show full text]