Tag Archives: settlement

Watching the Watchmen: Should the Public Have Access to Monitorship Reports in FCPA Settlements?

Posted on by
4

When the Department of Justice (DOJ) settles Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases with corporate defendants, the settlement sometimes stipulates that the firm must retain a “corporate monitor” for some period of time as a condition of the DOJ’s decision not to pursue further action against the firm. The monitor, paid for by the firm, reports to the government on whether the firm is effectively cleaning up its act and improving its compliance system. While lacking direct decision-making power, the corporate monitor has broad access to internal firm information and engages directly with top-level management on issues related to the firm’s compliance. The monitor’s reports to the DOJ are (or at least are supposed to be) critically important to the government’s determination whether the firm has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Recent initiatives by transparency advocates and other civil society groups have raised a question that had not previously attracted much attention: Should the public have access to these monitor reports? Consider the efforts of 100Reporters, a news organization focused on corruption issues, to obtain monitorship documents related to the 2008 FCPA settlement between Siemens and the DOJ. Back in 2008, Siemens pleaded guilty to bribery charges and agreed to pay large fines to the DOJ and SEC. As a condition of the settlement, Siemens agreed to install a corporate monitor, Dr. Theo Waigel, for four years. That monitorship ended in 2012, and the DOJ determined Siemens satisfied its obligations under the plea agreement. Shortly afterwards, 100Reporters filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DOJ, seeking access to the compliance monitoring documents, including four of Dr. Waigel’s annual reports. After the DOJ denied the FOIA request, on the grounds that the documents were exempt from FOIA because they comprised part of law enforcement deliberations, 100Reporters sued.

The legal questions at issue in this and similar cases are somewhat complicated; they can involve, for example, the question whether monitoring reports are “judicial records”—a question that has caused some disagreement among U.S. courts. For this post, I will put the more technical legal issues to one side and focus on the broader policy issue: Should monitor reports be available to interested members of the public, or should the government be able to keep them confidential? The case for disclosure is straightforward: as 100Reporters argues, there is a public interest in ensuring that settlements appropriately ensure future compliance, as well as a public interest in monitoring how effectively the DOJ and SEC oversee these settlement agreements. But in resisting 100Reporters’ FOIA request, the DOJ (and Siemens and Dr. Waigel) have argued that ordering public disclosure of these documents will hurt, not help, FCPA enforcement, for two reasons:  Continue reading →

Victim-Compensation Arguments Cut Both Ways

Posted on by
2

In my last post, I imagined what a frustrated U.S. official might have to say about the ever-increasing drumbeat of demands for the United States to “return” (that is, transfer) the “proceeds of crime” (that is, the fines collected from corporate defendants in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases) to the “victim countries” (that is, the governments whose officials took the bribes that gave rise to the FCPA violations). My imaginary rant was deliberately over-the-top, intended to be provocative and to stir up some more honest debate on this topic by cutting through the circumspection and diplomatic niceties that usually accompany pushback against the “give the settlement money to the victim countries” position. In this post, I want to continue on the same general topic, and in the same provocateur’s spirit, by asking the following question:

When (or if) demand-side countries start collecting serious fines against bribe-taking public officials and/or bribe-paying companies, does the logic of compensating “victims” dictate that these countries transfer some of the money they recover to the United States?

At the risk of seeming totally bonkers, I’m going to assert that the answer might well be yes if one accepts the logic for making transfer payments in the other direction (from the U.S. government to the governments of the countries whose officials took the bribes) in FCPA cases. Here’s the argument: Continue reading →

What Might U.S. Officials Think of Demands that the U.S. Transfer FCPA Settlement Proceeds to Demand-Side Governments? An Imaginary Rant

Posted on by
5

As the United States continues to settle Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases with corporate defendants for large sums, the issue of whether the U.S. and other “supply-side” enforcers should transfer a portion of these settlement proceeds to the countries where the bribery took place has continued to attract attention and discussion. (This question is often framed as whether the U.S. should “return” some of these settlement proceeds to the “victim countries,” but that formulation is highly misleading, both because criminal fines were never the property of another government, and so cannot be “returned,” and because in many cases referring to these countries as “victims” is problematic, to put it mildly. So I’ll refer to this as “transferring settlement proceeds to demand-side countries.”) The push for transferring settlement proceeds to demand-side countries has gotten a bit more traction over the past year, and has become something of a talking point for certain demand-side governments, especially those in Africa, along with supporting NGOs. So, for example, a Nigeria-sponsored resolution at last year’s UN Convention Against Corruption Conference of States Parties (Resolution 6/2) called for “urgent attention” to the (utterly bogus and misleading) statistic that although US$6.2 billion has been recovered through settlements in foreign bribery cases, only 3% of this amount “has been returned to States whose officials were bribed and where corrupt transactions took place, which is a key aim of chapter V of the contention,” and further called on states that use settlements to conclude foreign bribery cases to “give due consideration to the involvement of the jurisdictions … where foreign officials were bribed.” (The original proposed language was far stronger, “noting with concern the prevailing narrow interpretation of the terms ‘proceeds of crime’ in settlements … that excludes … fines in order to avoid such proceeds from being returned to States and, by so doing, using settlements to create an artificial category of victims of corruption, thereby reducing the potency of chapter V of the Convention.”) One sees this push in several of the country statements coming out of last month’s London Anticorruption Summit, especially those of Nigeria and Tanzania.

Unsurprisingly, the United States has resisted these calls. Generally, U.S. officials have done so (at least in public) tactfully and diplomatically, emphasizing the U.S. government’s commitment to helping the victims of cooperation, its willingness to work with other countries to cooperate in ongoing investigations and improve the mutual legal assistance process, etc. But I’m beginning to sense a growing undercurrent of frustration on the U.S. side, as an increasing number of demand-side countries and NGOs are making the call for transfer of settlement proceeds to demand-side governments (which, again, they often characterize as “returning assets to victim countries”) a central theme of their presentations and diplomatic efforts. (And perhaps, I should acknowledge, some of the frustration I’m sensing is a reflection of my own skepticism – see here, here, and here.) Now, when I say I sense growing frustration or irritation on the U.S. side, I should be clear that I’m speculating. Though I’ve met a few officials from the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, and Treasury who work on corruption issues, I’m certainly no insider, and nothing in the rest of this post should be interpreted is reflecting any actual conversations or statements from current or former U.S. government officials, because it doesn’t. Nor should this be taken as fully reflecting my own views, even though part of what I’m going to write below is generated by introspection.

With those caveats, I’d like to try to imagine what’s going on in the heads of U.S. government officials as they smile politely while listening to the sorts of criticisms I noted above, and when they express, in measured language, their reservations about the proposals that the U.S. transfer FCPA settlement proceeds to demand-side countries. Just for fun, and to be a bit provocative, I’ll present this as a kind of unhinged rant – the sort of thing I imagine that a hypothetical U.S. official’s id might be screaming internally, behind the polite smiles and diplomatic language imposed by her superego. The imaginary rant, in response to demands that the U.S. transfer FCPA settlement proceeds to demand-side countries, might run something like this: Continue reading →

Guest Post: What’s the Problem with Out-of-Court Settlements for Foreign Bribery? A Reply to Stephenson

Posted on by
3

GAB is delighted to welcome back Susan Hawley, policy director of Corruption Watch, for further discussion and debate regarding the proposal to create global standards for out-of-court settlements in foreign bribery cases:

Matthew Stephenson has devoted three successive blog posts (see here, here, and here) to critiquing the position that we outlined in our report, Out of Court, Out of Mind, calling for global standards for corporate settlements on corruption cases. NGOs, including we at Corruption Watch, along with Transparency International, Global Witness, and the UNCAC Coalition, outlined this position in a letter to the OECD. I am delighted that our report and the joint letter has triggered such interest and discussion. This is a hugely important debate: it cuts to the heart of how countries enforce their anticorruption laws and what constitutes effective enforcement.

We wrote our letter to the OECD and released our report precisely to stimulate this kind of debate at a time when:

  • a number of countries are looking at whether to introduce Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and/or Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) specifically to improve their track record of dealing with overseas corruption and
  • many countries in Europe appear to be choosing to resolve the few enforcement actions that they are taking through out-of-court settlements.

This post offers a riposte to Professor Stephenson’s criticisms of our case for global standard for corporate settlements in these cases. The fact that Professor Stephenson devoted three blog posts to the subject shows how meaty it is, and it won’t be possible in a single reply post to go into all of his criticisms, but this post replies to some of the most essential points. Continue reading →

A Detailed Critique of the NGO Call for Global Standards for Corporate Settlements in Foreign Bribery Cases

Posted on by
7

In my last couple of posts, I’ve responded to—and criticized—the joint letter that several of my favorite anticorruption NGOs (Corruption Watch, Transparency International, Global Witness, and the UNCAC Coalition) sent to the OECD last month, urging the adoption of “global standards for corporate settlements based on best practice.” My first post took issue with the claim (further developed in a Corruption Watch report) that the current approach (mainly in the U.S.) to corporate settlements in foreign bribery cases was inconsistent with adequate enforcement, while my next post questioned the need for global guidelines. But both of my prior posts could fairly be criticized for (among other things) being too abstract, and for not responding to the specific list of 14 “best practices” identified in the NGOs’ joint letter.

I take that criticism to heart, so in this post—at the risk of overkill on this one letter, but in the hopes of spurring further constructive dialogue on this important topic—I’ll offer a point-by-point reaction to each of the 14 principles listed in the joint letter. Here goes: Continue reading →

Guest Post: Time for Global Standards on Corporate Settlements in Transnational Bribery Cases

Posted on by
4

Susan Hawley, Policy Director of Corruption Watch, a UK-based anticorruption organization, contributes the following guest post:

Earlier this month, the OECD held a Ministerial meeting on its Anti-Bribery Convention, which culminated with Ministers from 50 countries signing a Declaration that reaffirmed their commitment to fighting transnational bribery. Despite that statement of renewed commitment, however, the fact remains that only four countries out of the 41 signatories have shown any attempt at actively enforcing the Convention, and pressure is rightly mounting on countries to show they are taking some kind of action. As a result, an increasing number of countries are looking to deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), and similar forms of pre-indictment corporate settlements as a way to achieve better results. The United States—by far the most active enforcer of its law against foreign bribery—has used such agreements to produce its impressive enforcement record over the last 10 years. The OECD Foreign Bribery Report noted that 69% of foreign bribery cases have been resolved through some form of settlement since 1999. And it’s not just the US. Various European countries have used some form of out-of-court settlement procedure as a way of dealing with the few cases against companies that they have brought. The UK has recently introduced DPAs, based on the U.S. model (though with some important differences), and countries like Australia, France, Ireland, and Canada are all considering doing something similar.

Yet the widespread use of DPAs and NPAs has prompted concerns. The OECD Working Group on Bribery, in its reviews on implementation of the Convention, has sometimes questioned whether these settlements are sufficiently transparent and effective, and whether they instill public confidence. My own organization, Corruption Watch, recently produced a report on corporate settlements in foreign bribery cases, “Out of Court, Out of Mind: Do Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Corporate Settlements Fail to Deter Overseas Corruption?” that raised similar questions. Corruption Watch, along with Global Witness, Transparency International, and the UNCAC Coalition (a network of over 350 civil society organisations across the world) wrote a joint letter to the OECD Secretary General ahead of the Ministerial meeting urging the Working Group on Bribery to assess whether corporate settlements have sufficient deterrent effect, and to develop global standards for corporate settlements in foreign bribery cases.

Why the need for greater scrutiny, and the call for global standards? Several reasons:

  • First, these sorts of settlements allow culpable individuals off the hook, undermine the deterrent effect of the law by shielding companies from debarment from public contracting, and more generally fail to deter economic crime and prevent recidivism. The concern is that the fines and other penalties associated with DPAs/NPAs are just seen by firms a “cost of doing business,” rather than an impetus for meaningful change. Recent research by Karpoff, Lee, and Martin (discussed previously on this blog) suggests that in the US, which has imposed the highest fines and taken the most enforcement actions globally, detection would have to increase by 58.5% or fines increase by 9.2 times to offset the incentive to bribe. Indeed, there are signs that the U.S., despite having relied so extensively on diversionary corporate settlements, has recognized some of these weaknesses: The introduction of the Yates memo, with its emphasis on individual accountability, and the beefing up of the FBI’s resources for investigating corruption (and thus reducing the government’s reliance on corporate self-reporting), are examples of how the U.S. is taking note of the criticism of its reliance on DPAs and NPAs.
  • Second, in addition to their inadequacy for deterring foreign bribery, in many countries the negotiation of corporate settlements lacks adequate regulation or oversight.
  • Third, these corporate settlement agreements rarely provide any sort of compensation for victims of corruption.
  • Fourth, clear discrepancies are emerging about how different countries use corporate settlements to deal with foreign bribery, creating an uneven enforcement playing field.

Proponents of settlements argue that they are necessary because corruption cases are incredibly difficult and costly to investigate and prosecute; unless enforcement authorities encourage companies to come forward with evidence of their wrongdoing, the argument goes, enforcement rates will remain low and corruption will go undetected. Clearly encouraging companies, who often hold all the information required as to whether wrongdoing was committed, to report their own wrongdoing by offering some form of incentive needs to be a part of any enforcement strategy. But there are serious questions as to whether relying solely on settlements to deal with foreign bribery cases can provide real deterrence. Unless enforcement bodies beef up their ability to detect corruption and are willing to prosecute, there is little incentive for companies to report wrongdoing that they might otherwise get away with.

So what would global standards for corporate settlements look like? The NGOs’ joint letter to the OECD, referenced above, suggested 14 standards to the OECD. At the top of the agenda were the following:

  1. Settlements should be one tool in a broader enforcement strategy in which prosecution also plays an important role;
  2. Settlements should only be used where a company has genuinely self-reported, and cooperated fully;
  3. Judicial oversight which includes proper scrutiny of the evidence and a public hearing should be required;
  4. Prosecution of individuals should be standard practice;
  5. Settlements should only be used where a company is prepared to admit wrongdoing;
  6. Compensation to victims, based on the full harm caused by the corruption, must be an inherent part of a settlement.

These are high standards, but unless settlements are based on such standards, and unless they are used as part of a broader enforcement strategy which ensures that companies that don’t cooperate or self-report do get prosecuted, public confidence that justice is really being done when it comes to corporate bribery is going to be undermined.

Guest Post: Structuring Effective Corporate Pay-Back To Help Fight Corruption

Posted on by
3

GAB is pleased to welcome back Alan Doig, Visiting Professor at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, who contributes the following guest post:

In recent years, there has been a swelling call for a substantial portion of the fines, disgorged profits, and other payments recovered from corporations in foreign bribery cases to be used to fund anticorruption initiatives, particularly those designed to fight corruption in the “victim” countries. If this recommendation were taken seriously, the potential funding resources could be substantial. While the recoveries from corporate settlements are miniscule (and ad hoc) contributions to national treasuries, they often dwarf what even big donor agencies spend. For example, the UNDP’s 2014-2017 GAIN (Global Anti-Corruption Initiative) had a total budget of $16 million, an amount much less than the fine and disgorgement from the first Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and ICBC Standard Bank in December 2015. Just think how such funds could provide badly-needed resources for anticorruption work, particularly for areas or organizations seeking new sources of funding, or for innovative work, in what is a very competitive environment. Thus while Integrity Action has managed to win competitive funding from soruces as diverse as Google’s Global Impact Challenge and the UK Comic Relief charity, the chair of the Board of Governors of the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) recently bemoaned the fact that IACA’s “last two general budgets never received 90% of the funding that was unanimously agreed upon” by member states, without which there would be no opportunity for the implementation of its ambitious programs.

While corporate settlements would provide a regular and substantial resource beyond the usual multilateral and bilateral donors (and the occasional big private foundation), there are, of course, a number of practical, legal, and political problems with getting countries to agree to divert substantial portions of such settlement funds to support anticorruption efforts. But even assuming these obstacles are overcome, another set of problems remains: Assuming that a given country (say, the US or UK) has decided that a substantial portion of a corporate penalty for bribery should be redirected to fund anticorruption efforts, how should the arrangement be structured? Which entities should be responsible for any settlement funds? Who will make the key decisions? What will be funded, by whom, and for how long? Our limited experience to date illustrates several options that have been attempted so far: Continue reading →

Can a Corporate Settlement that Names Names Be Grounds for a Defamation Suit?

Posted on by
2

A running theme in discussions—and criticisms—of government settlements with corporations in foreign bribery cases is the failure to focus adequately on individuals. Most commonly, this criticism emphasizes the alleged failure of the “supply-side” enforcers (e.g., the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO), etc.) to bring charges against the individual corporate officers and employees responsible for the illegal conduct. Additionally, though, some—including some contributors to this blog (see here and here)—have emphasized that settlements with supply-side enforcers should contain enough information on the illegal transactions that enforcement authorities in the demand-side countries (that is, the countries whose public officials took the bribes) can go after individuals under their jurisdiction. Such individuals would include, most obviously, the government officials who took the bribes, but might also include third-party intermediaries and other local agents over whom the supply-side enforcers lack jurisdiction.

The idea that the public documents in these settlement agreements ought to include a detailed discussion of the transactions, including the identities of the individuals involved, sounds like a good idea. Indeed, I think it generally is a good idea (though I confess I haven’t thought through the issue carefully). But recent news reports out of Tanzania last week highlight a potential pitfall that I confess I hadn’t previously considered: The individuals named as wrongdoers in corporate settlement agreements might sue. Are such suits viable? I have no idea. But the problem is worth considering.

Let me first lay out a brief synopsis of the Tanzania case, and then offer a few under-informed speculations about what this all means. Continue reading →

(Why) Is the Walmart Case Taking So Long?

Posted on by
9

So this might not be the most important question in the world, but I’ve been wondering why the U.S. Government’s investigation into Walmart’s alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (or, more accurately, FCPA violations committed by Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary, Walmex) has yet to produce a final settlement.

A quick and somewhat simplified recap (for those among our readers who don’t obsessively follow every FCPA case in the pipeline): In April 2012, two New York Times reporters broke a blockbuster story about how Wal-Mex had been systematically paying bribes to scores of Mexican officials to get permits for new stores (often circumventing local environmental protection and historical preservation regulations in the process), and—perhaps even more damningly—about how Walmart’s senior leadership, upon learning of the bribery allegations from an internal whistleblower and preliminary internal investigation, had decided to cover up the problem and reject its own compliance department’s calls for a thorough investigation. (Walmart tried to get out in front of the story by including a disclosure of possible FCPA problems in its December 2011 FCPA filing, though that disclosure downplayed the seriousness of the issue.) The original New York Times story, along with a follow-up story published in April 2012, netted the two reporters a Pulitzer Prize. Those reports, along with Walmart’s December 2011 disclosure, prompted the Department of Justice Securities & Exchange Commission to begin investigating Walmart for FCPA violations.

That was back in April 2012. It’s now three and a half years later, and there’s still no resolution of the case; the investigation is still ongoing—something that has prompted grumbling in some quarters about both the length and cost of the investigation (see here and here). Why is this taking so long?

This is a question I’ve heard several people raise at various conferences and meetings. I don’t have any good answers, but I thought I’d throw out a few hypotheses: Continue reading →

No Longer a Cost of Doing Business: The Yates Memo Signals DOJ Is Serious About Going After Individuals

Posted on by
7

As many observers have noted, penalties for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations tend to fall on corporations, rather than individual wrongdoers. The individual employees responsible for the unlawful conduct rarely pay fines or go to prison. The FCPA is not unique in this regard; many U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) settlements with corporate defendants shield executives and employees from personal liability so long as the corporation accepts institutional responsibility. Yet this enforcement posture has been unsatisfying, and critics argue that many corporations simply treat the fines as an accepted cost of doing business. In response to this concern, and after much foreshadowing, the DOJ formally released a new policy on individual liability last week—a policy that applies to all corporate prosecutions and settlements, including those involving the FCPA. Known as the “Yates Memo” (it was announced by Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates in her remarks at NYU School of Law on September 9th), this new policy statement—the first major policy announcement from the DOJ under Attorney General Loretta Lynch—signals that the “cost of doing business” model of corporate compliance is coming to a definitive end.

Continue reading →