Last month, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer delivered the Franz-Hermann Brüner Memorial Lecture at the World Bank and focused his remarks on the DOJ Criminal Division's "comprehensive approach to fighting corruption." (See here for the transcript).
This post provides an overview of Breuer's remarks.
*****
"Corruption corrodes the public trust in countries rich and poor, and has particularly negative effects on emerging economies. When a developing country’s public officials routinely abuse their power for personal gain, its people suffer tremendously. At a concrete level, roads are not built, schools lie in ruin, and basic public services go unprovided. At a more abstract, but no less important, level, political institutions lose legitimacy, threatening democratic stability and the rule of law, and people begin to lose hope that they will ever be able to improve their lot. As the President put it last week, you cannot reach your potential when you “cannot start a business without paying a bribe.”"
"There are of course many ways in which the U.S. government addresses the problem of corruption abroad. As the head of Criminal Division, I want to focus on three: our criminal prosecution efforts; our work to build the prosecutorial and law enforcement capacity of foreign nations; and our emerging focus on recovering and repatriating the proceeds of foreign official corruption."
As to criminal prosecution efforts, after highlighting recent corruption cases involving federal, state, and local officials, Breuer talked about the FCPA. He stated as follows.
"The FCPA was the first effort of any nation to specifically criminalize the act of bribing foreign officials. The statute was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and resulted in a dramatic plunge in Americans’ overall trust in government."
"In 1976, following certain prosecutions for illegal use of corporate funds arising out of Watergate, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a report in which it determined that foreign bribery by U.S. corporations was “serious and sufficiently widespread to be a cause for deep concern.” S.E.C. investigations revealed that hundreds of U.S. companies had made corrupt foreign payments involving hundreds of millions of dollars. With this background, the Senate concluded that there was a strong need for anti-bribery legislation in the United States. “Corporate bribery is bad business,” the Senate Banking Committee said in its report on the legislation. “In our free market system it is basic that the sale of products should take place on the basis of price, quality, and service. Corporate bribery is fundamentally destructive of this basic tenet.”"
"That was true then, and it’s true now. And over the two-plus years of this Administration, we have dramatically increased our enforcement of the FCPA. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2004, the Justice Department charged two individuals under the Act and collected around $11 million in criminal fines. In 2005, we charged five individuals and collected around $16½ million. By contrast, in 2009 and 2010 combined, we charged over 50 individuals and collected nearly $2 billion."
"And we are only moving forward. Earlier this month, we secured the first jury conviction ever against a corporation in an FCPA case. The case, which also resulted in trial verdicts against the company’s president and its CFO, involved a scheme to pay bribes to Mexican government officials at CFE, a state-owned utility company."
"Last week, the former CEO of a Miami-based telecommunications company pleaded guilty to conspiring to pay bribes to government officials in Honduras in connection with a scheme to secure contracts from Hondutel, the state-owned telecommunications authority. Last month, the former vice-president of sales for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East at the multi-national valve company Control Components Inc., or CCI, pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe government officials in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries."
" ... [T]he point is this: FCPA enforcement matters. When U.S. businesspersons, foreign executives, and even foreign officials know that they risk liability under the FCPA and related statutes, behavior changes. In addition to motivating U.S. and foreign corporations to change the way they do business – something that I believe is already happening – the threat of liability can help corporations resist corrupt demands from foreign officials, which can lead the officials themselves to alter their practices. Beyond that, through our FCPA enforcement, we are also sending a signal to ordinary people – [...] across the globe – that we stand with you: we support you in your desire to have fair and transparent institutions, and to have the chance to compete in marketplaces large and small."
As to the DOJ's "emerging focus on recovering and repatriating the proceeds of foreign official corruption," Breuer talked about the DOJ's "new Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative."
He stated as follows.
"The goal of the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, which Attorney General Holder announced last July and which my team and I have been working to build over the past year, is to identify the proceeds of foreign official corruption, forfeit them, and repatriate the recouped funds for the benefit of the people harmed."
"In the context of a criminal prosecution, a court can order forfeiture, upon conviction, as part of the defendant’s sentence. Thus, for example, if we were to bring a criminal case against a kleptocrat in the United States, we would be able to seek criminal forfeiture of his or her stolen assets."
"Often, however, it may be impractical or impossible to bring a criminal prosecution against a kleptocrat. He or she may be immune from prosecution, beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, or otherwise unavailable. In these circumstances, the Kleptocracy Team can bring a civil forfeiture action to recover the stolen property. This is sometimes referred to internationally as non-conviction based confiscation."
"The Kleptocracy Team recently brought its first cases, and we expect more to come in the near future. Let me provide a specific example. Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha, also known as DSP, was the elected governor of the oil-producing Bayelsa State in Nigeria from 1999 until his impeachment in 2005. According to court papers, DSP’s official salary for this entire period was approximately $81,000, and his declared income from all sources during the period was approximately $248,000. Nevertheless, as governor, DSP accumulated enormous wealth through corruption and other illegal activities. He acquired at least four properties in the United Kingdom worth approximately $8.8 million, he had money in bank accounts around the world, and he also acquired property in the United States. When he was ultimately arrested at Heathrow Airport in 2005, the Metropolitan Police Service in London found approximately $1.6 million in cash in his house."
"In March and April of this year, we brought two separate civil forfeiture actions to recover over $1,000,000 in what we allege are DSP’s ill-gotten gains. In Maryland, we are seeking forfeiture of a private residence worth more than $600,000, and in Massachusetts we are seeking forfeiture of close to $400,000 in a Fidelity brokerage account."
"We were able to bring these cases, even though DSP long ago absconded to Nigeria, because the law permits us to bring a civil action against the corrupt proceeds themselves rather than against the person to whom they belong."
*****
A good weekend to all.
Showing posts with label FCPA Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCPA Statistics. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Survey Says ...
KPMG Forensic recently released (here) its 2011 "Global Anti-Bribery and Corruption Survey." KPMG "surveyed 214 executives in the U.S. and U.K. to identify their most vexing anti-bribery and corruption ("AB&C") compliance challenges and to understand how companies are preventing, detecting and responding to AB&C risk." In summary form, the KPMG survey found that "despite a greater awareness of the business and legal imperatives for well-developed AB&C compliance programs among survey respondents, many compliance programs lack sufficient depth and breadth to effectively mitigate AB&C risk around the world."
According to the survey, "the three most significant AB&C compliance challenges cited by both U.S. and U.K. respondents are auditing third parties for compliance, difficulty in performing effective due diligence on foreign agents/third parties, and variations in country requirements and local laws on issues such as data privacy and facilitating payments."
Some survey results that caught my eye.
Nearly 60% of survey respondents said it was "not at all challenging" to "continue to run business while managing investigations."
Even though third-party (agent, distributor, joint venture partner, etc) risk ranked high in the survey results, only approximately 60% of respondents actually distribute AB&C policies and procedures to third parties and 60% of respondents said that most third party agents are not required to take AB&C training (in 2008 the U.S. response was 93%). Of further interest regarding third-parties, nearly 60% of respondents have "right to audit" clauses in contracts with third parties, but approximately 65% of respondents indicated that they have not exercised their "right to audit."
Even though facilitating payments are exempted under the FCPA (they are not under the U.K. Bribery Act or the OECD Convention) only 13% of U.S. respondents allow such payments (in 2008, 24% of U.S. respondents said they allowed such payments).
"More than 70% or respondents (73% in the U.K. and 70% in the U.S.) agreed there are places in the world where business cannot be done without engaging in bribery and corruption."
"To mitigate the risk of doing business in countries in which bribery and corruption is perceived to be endemic, respondents' favored strategy was to provide additional training (43% of UK and 49% of US respondents), with enhanced internal controls, more closely monitoring operations, conducting due diligence on third parties, and obtaining compliance certifications all following closely."
"An additional risk mitigation strategy - selected by 32% of U.K. and 25% of U.S. respondents - was to not do business in certain countries." The survey results do not breakdown this response in any detail, but it would be interesting to know which countries the 25% of U.S. respondents were not willing to do business in because of corruption concerns. My guess is that these countries are not high-growth, high-potential markets.
The KPMG survey was conducted via telephone between October-November 2010 and included 214 executives (106 in the U.S., 108 in the U.K.) who identified themselves as "one of the most senior persons in charge of day-to-day AB&C matters at their company."
KPMG Forensic assists "clients in achieving the highest levels of business integrity through the prevention, detection, and investigation of fraud and misconduct ...".
According to the survey, "the three most significant AB&C compliance challenges cited by both U.S. and U.K. respondents are auditing third parties for compliance, difficulty in performing effective due diligence on foreign agents/third parties, and variations in country requirements and local laws on issues such as data privacy and facilitating payments."
Some survey results that caught my eye.
Nearly 60% of survey respondents said it was "not at all challenging" to "continue to run business while managing investigations."
Even though third-party (agent, distributor, joint venture partner, etc) risk ranked high in the survey results, only approximately 60% of respondents actually distribute AB&C policies and procedures to third parties and 60% of respondents said that most third party agents are not required to take AB&C training (in 2008 the U.S. response was 93%). Of further interest regarding third-parties, nearly 60% of respondents have "right to audit" clauses in contracts with third parties, but approximately 65% of respondents indicated that they have not exercised their "right to audit."
Even though facilitating payments are exempted under the FCPA (they are not under the U.K. Bribery Act or the OECD Convention) only 13% of U.S. respondents allow such payments (in 2008, 24% of U.S. respondents said they allowed such payments).
"More than 70% or respondents (73% in the U.K. and 70% in the U.S.) agreed there are places in the world where business cannot be done without engaging in bribery and corruption."
"To mitigate the risk of doing business in countries in which bribery and corruption is perceived to be endemic, respondents' favored strategy was to provide additional training (43% of UK and 49% of US respondents), with enhanced internal controls, more closely monitoring operations, conducting due diligence on third parties, and obtaining compliance certifications all following closely."
"An additional risk mitigation strategy - selected by 32% of U.K. and 25% of U.S. respondents - was to not do business in certain countries." The survey results do not breakdown this response in any detail, but it would be interesting to know which countries the 25% of U.S. respondents were not willing to do business in because of corruption concerns. My guess is that these countries are not high-growth, high-potential markets.
The KPMG survey was conducted via telephone between October-November 2010 and included 214 executives (106 in the U.S., 108 in the U.K.) who identified themselves as "one of the most senior persons in charge of day-to-day AB&C matters at their company."
KPMG Forensic assists "clients in achieving the highest levels of business integrity through the prevention, detection, and investigation of fraud and misconduct ...".
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday Roundup
Fear mongering and the dark empire, FCPA scrutiny of Hamid Karzai's brother, the DOJ's kleptocracy unit takes shape, and survey findings ... it's all here in the Friday roundup.
Fear Mongering and the Dark Empire
What does Sharie Brown (here), Chair of DLA Piper's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Corruption and Corporate Compliance Practice, think about the U.K. Bribery Act, the surge in FCPA Inc., and the revolving door? See here for a recent interview with Corporate Crime Reporter.
A Future Afghanistan Related FCPA Enforcement Action?
A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York is reportedly hearing evidence against Mahmood Karzai (a dual Afghan and U.S. citizen and the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai) including possible evidence that Afghan Investment Co. (incorporated in Virgina until 2010) bribed Afghanistan's then mining minister to secure a lease on the country's only cement factory. See Matthew Rosenberg "Grand Jury Investigates Karzai Brother) (Wall Street Journal - Feb. 16th).
If evidence exists that Karzai did indeed violate the FCPA, one can only imagine the political / foreign policy considerations of criminally indicting the brother of the Afghan President. I like to think that the government blindly goes where the evidence leads them, but the BAE and James Giffen enforcement actions suggests that may not always be the case.
To my knowledge, there has never been an FCPA enforcement action involving conduct in Afghanistan.
DOJ Kleptocracy Unit
Joe Palazzolo (Wall Street Journal Corruption Current) recently spoke with several officials involved in the DOJ's nascent kleptocracy unit. See here for previous discussion and other links regarding the kleptocracy initiative.
Palazzolo reports (here) that the unit will be housed in the DOJ's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and staffed by five lawyers. The FBI's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Unit will also divert two agents to the new unit. According to the report, "U.S. officials expect that most cases will involve foreign politicians who have left office and are no longer in a position to obstruct investigations." Palazzolo reports that the unit's "first major case could be ready in the next month and several more are expected this year."
Survey Findings
Among the findings in Deloitte and Forbes Insights 4th annual "Look Before You Leap" survey (here) is the following:
"Almost two-thirds (63%) of total survey respondents identified Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and anti-corruption issues that led to an aborted deal or a renegotiation over the past three years. Lack of transparency or unusual payment structures in contracts was cited by one in five and 18% pointed to the use of agents, consultants, distributors, or third parties to obtain or facilitate business."
The survey results indicate that strategic buyers are more impacted (and perhaps more sensitive to FCPA issues) than financial buyers such as private equity firms and hedge funds.
*****
A good weekend to all.
Fear Mongering and the Dark Empire
What does Sharie Brown (here), Chair of DLA Piper's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Corruption and Corporate Compliance Practice, think about the U.K. Bribery Act, the surge in FCPA Inc., and the revolving door? See here for a recent interview with Corporate Crime Reporter.
A Future Afghanistan Related FCPA Enforcement Action?
A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York is reportedly hearing evidence against Mahmood Karzai (a dual Afghan and U.S. citizen and the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai) including possible evidence that Afghan Investment Co. (incorporated in Virgina until 2010) bribed Afghanistan's then mining minister to secure a lease on the country's only cement factory. See Matthew Rosenberg "Grand Jury Investigates Karzai Brother) (Wall Street Journal - Feb. 16th).
If evidence exists that Karzai did indeed violate the FCPA, one can only imagine the political / foreign policy considerations of criminally indicting the brother of the Afghan President. I like to think that the government blindly goes where the evidence leads them, but the BAE and James Giffen enforcement actions suggests that may not always be the case.
To my knowledge, there has never been an FCPA enforcement action involving conduct in Afghanistan.
DOJ Kleptocracy Unit
Joe Palazzolo (Wall Street Journal Corruption Current) recently spoke with several officials involved in the DOJ's nascent kleptocracy unit. See here for previous discussion and other links regarding the kleptocracy initiative.
Palazzolo reports (here) that the unit will be housed in the DOJ's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and staffed by five lawyers. The FBI's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Unit will also divert two agents to the new unit. According to the report, "U.S. officials expect that most cases will involve foreign politicians who have left office and are no longer in a position to obstruct investigations." Palazzolo reports that the unit's "first major case could be ready in the next month and several more are expected this year."
Survey Findings
Among the findings in Deloitte and Forbes Insights 4th annual "Look Before You Leap" survey (here) is the following:
"Almost two-thirds (63%) of total survey respondents identified Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and anti-corruption issues that led to an aborted deal or a renegotiation over the past three years. Lack of transparency or unusual payment structures in contracts was cited by one in five and 18% pointed to the use of agents, consultants, distributors, or third parties to obtain or facilitate business."
The survey results indicate that strategic buyers are more impacted (and perhaps more sensitive to FCPA issues) than financial buyers such as private equity firms and hedge funds.
*****
A good weekend to all.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Friday Roundup
FCPA enforcement down 100% and some items for the weekend watch/read list.
Enforcement Down 100%
Last year at this time there were already 23 FCPA enforcement actions (22 defendants in the Africa Sting case and the Natco Group enforcement action).
So far this year there have been 0.
Thus, FCPA enforcement is down 100%.
I don't expect you to take this statistic seriously and I don't intend it to be. Rather, it is meant as a commentary on the often times odd obsession some have with FCPA enforcement statistics (misleading as they may be in many cases).
On to more meaningful commentary by others.
For Your Viewing Pleasure
Two titans of the FCPA bar, Homer Moyer (here) and Martin Weinstein (here) were recently the focus of separate interviews on the BulletProofBlog as to various FCPA topics.
Informative views here and here.
For Your Reading Pleasure
Gary Stein (here - Schulte Roth & Zable) has an informative overview (here) of "Sentencing of Individuals in FCPA Cases."
I've been documenting the growing trend of judges significantly rejecting DOJ sentencing recommendations in FCPA cases (see here) and Stein "hits the nail on the head" with this paragraph:
"The DOJ exercises virtually unlimited discretion in deciding who gets charged in FCPA cases and, for all practical purposes, in deciding the amount of the financial penalty imposed against corporate violators. But sentencing of individual defendants, particularly after U.S. v. Booker, is ultimately a matter of judicial, not prosecutorial discretion. And it has become apparent that there is a wide and growing rift between the views of the DOJ and the courts as to the appropriate sentences for individual violators in FCPA cases."
Tired of all the "are you ready" hysteria surrounding the U.K. Bribery Act?
If so, you will want to read "Keep Calm and Carry On" (here) by Alexandra Wrage (President of Trace) recently published by In Compliance Magazine. Among other things, Wrage states that "the argument that companies that have navigated FCPA waters for a decade or more are unprepared for the new UK Act is unfounded."
See here for my "bold" prediction that implementation of the U.K. Bribery Act (whenever that occurs) is not that big of deal for most companies and that U.K. enforcement of the Bribery Act is likely to be measured and disciplined.
*****
A good weekend to all.
Enforcement Down 100%
Last year at this time there were already 23 FCPA enforcement actions (22 defendants in the Africa Sting case and the Natco Group enforcement action).
So far this year there have been 0.
Thus, FCPA enforcement is down 100%.
I don't expect you to take this statistic seriously and I don't intend it to be. Rather, it is meant as a commentary on the often times odd obsession some have with FCPA enforcement statistics (misleading as they may be in many cases).
On to more meaningful commentary by others.
For Your Viewing Pleasure
Two titans of the FCPA bar, Homer Moyer (here) and Martin Weinstein (here) were recently the focus of separate interviews on the BulletProofBlog as to various FCPA topics.
Informative views here and here.
For Your Reading Pleasure
Gary Stein (here - Schulte Roth & Zable) has an informative overview (here) of "Sentencing of Individuals in FCPA Cases."
I've been documenting the growing trend of judges significantly rejecting DOJ sentencing recommendations in FCPA cases (see here) and Stein "hits the nail on the head" with this paragraph:
"The DOJ exercises virtually unlimited discretion in deciding who gets charged in FCPA cases and, for all practical purposes, in deciding the amount of the financial penalty imposed against corporate violators. But sentencing of individual defendants, particularly after U.S. v. Booker, is ultimately a matter of judicial, not prosecutorial discretion. And it has become apparent that there is a wide and growing rift between the views of the DOJ and the courts as to the appropriate sentences for individual violators in FCPA cases."
Tired of all the "are you ready" hysteria surrounding the U.K. Bribery Act?
If so, you will want to read "Keep Calm and Carry On" (here) by Alexandra Wrage (President of Trace) recently published by In Compliance Magazine. Among other things, Wrage states that "the argument that companies that have navigated FCPA waters for a decade or more are unprepared for the new UK Act is unfounded."
See here for my "bold" prediction that implementation of the U.K. Bribery Act (whenever that occurs) is not that big of deal for most companies and that U.K. enforcement of the Bribery Act is likely to be measured and disciplined.
*****
A good weekend to all.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The TI Report
[Before turning to the TI Report, I am pleased to share that FCPA Professor has been named a "Top 25 Business Law Blog" by LexisNexis. Voting is open for the top blog, which will be announced on November 3rd. Here is the link to vote. Thank you for your support]
Earlier this week, Transparency International a "global civil society organization leading the fight against corruption" released its annual Corruption Perceptions Index ("CPI") (see here).
As TI's report explains, the CPI "draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys" to compile an index "relating to bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts."
In a release TI noted that the "2010 CPI shows that nearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the index score below five, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption), indicating a serious problem.
The United States scored a 7.1 in the CPI index - 22nd out of 178 countries and below several European countries, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Qatar, the United Kingdom, and others. As others have reported (here) "this was the lowest score awarded to the United States in the index's 15-year history and also the first time it had fallen out of the top 20."
In a video release (here) TI's Chair, Hugette Labelle, stated that "corruption remains a serious obstacle and cause for concern" and that a "vital issue remains enforcement without which all the laws in the world will be of little value."
While the CPI may just seem like a bunch of numbers, the index has real-world application as many companies and FCPA compliance professionals calibrate FCPA risk assessment to the CPI.
Earlier this week, Transparency International a "global civil society organization leading the fight against corruption" released its annual Corruption Perceptions Index ("CPI") (see here).
As TI's report explains, the CPI "draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys" to compile an index "relating to bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts."
In a release TI noted that the "2010 CPI shows that nearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the index score below five, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption), indicating a serious problem.
The United States scored a 7.1 in the CPI index - 22nd out of 178 countries and below several European countries, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Qatar, the United Kingdom, and others. As others have reported (here) "this was the lowest score awarded to the United States in the index's 15-year history and also the first time it had fallen out of the top 20."
In a video release (here) TI's Chair, Hugette Labelle, stated that "corruption remains a serious obstacle and cause for concern" and that a "vital issue remains enforcement without which all the laws in the world will be of little value."
While the CPI may just seem like a bunch of numbers, the index has real-world application as many companies and FCPA compliance professionals calibrate FCPA risk assessment to the CPI.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Statistics of Note
Fulbright & Jaworski's Annual Litigation Trends Survey Report is always an interesting read and this year's report (available for download here) is no exception.
The report compiles survey data from "senior corporate counsel on their experiences and opinions regarding various aspects of litigation and related matters." "There were 403 participants in the Litigation Trends Survey of 2010, including 275 in the U.S. and 128 in the U.K. (a record high)." Approximately 50% of the survey participants were employed by a company with gross revenues of over $1 billion.
Some statistics that caught my eye.
"Companies that have engaged outside counsel to assist with a corruption or bribery investigation in the past 12 months (including, but not limited to, FCPA in the U.S. and equivalent in U.K.)"
12% U.S., 26% U.K.
Surprising on both fronts. The spike in the U.K. rate 26% in 2010 vs. 12% in 2009 is not surprising given the increased attention to bribery and corruption issues in the U.K. as the Bribery Act nears implementation.
According to the survey, "a quarter of manufacturers have conducted bribery/corruption investigations" and this sector "continues to lead other industries, as it has for the past two years."
"Companies that have engaged in due diligence for bribery or corruption (including FCPA matters) relating to a merger, acquisition or other business transaction with a foreign country in the past 12 months."
17% U.S., 28% U.K.
Again surprising on both fronts. FCPA-specific due diligence in M&A and other cross-border transactions is frequently preached by the enforcement agencies, but apparently companies are not getting the message, or if they are, they don't view FCPA specific due diligence as a value added exercise.
This next statistic is also surprising, particulary given (what at least appears to be from media and other reports) high anxiety levels as to the upcoming U.K. Bribery Act. I like how Miller & Chevalier states it in its recent FCPA Autumn Review 2010 (see here) - the U.K. Bribery Act "about which so much is being said and written" an issue already the "subject of lively debate and ominous forebodings" and a topic "commanding considerable commentary and concern."
"Do you foresee changes in the way your company operates due to the new U.K. Bribery Act?"
89% no - U.S.
65% no - U.K.
The following non-FCPA statistic was also interesting.
"A quarter of the companies that have conducted an internal investigation reported the matter to a regulatory agency, as a result of the investigation." I suspect that if this topic was FCPA specific the percentage would have been higher than 25%.
*****
As to FCPA, Inc. issue generally, this recent article in The Lawyer by Matt Byrne caught me eye. It discusses Shearman & Sterling's "radical strategy" to boost litigation related revenue. The article quotes N.Y. based partner Herb Washer as saying that, among other areas, FCPA-related matters are acting as a catalyst for Shearman’s litigation push. “FCPA enforcement has become an explicit priority of the Department of Justice,” says Washer. “There’s not only a greater number of cases but the fines are trending upwards. There’s very big money at risk and companies are spending big money to defend themselves against allegations. There’s no doubt this is a significant driver for the growth of our practice and many of our competitors.”
The report compiles survey data from "senior corporate counsel on their experiences and opinions regarding various aspects of litigation and related matters." "There were 403 participants in the Litigation Trends Survey of 2010, including 275 in the U.S. and 128 in the U.K. (a record high)." Approximately 50% of the survey participants were employed by a company with gross revenues of over $1 billion.
Some statistics that caught my eye.
"Companies that have engaged outside counsel to assist with a corruption or bribery investigation in the past 12 months (including, but not limited to, FCPA in the U.S. and equivalent in U.K.)"
12% U.S., 26% U.K.
Surprising on both fronts. The spike in the U.K. rate 26% in 2010 vs. 12% in 2009 is not surprising given the increased attention to bribery and corruption issues in the U.K. as the Bribery Act nears implementation.
According to the survey, "a quarter of manufacturers have conducted bribery/corruption investigations" and this sector "continues to lead other industries, as it has for the past two years."
"Companies that have engaged in due diligence for bribery or corruption (including FCPA matters) relating to a merger, acquisition or other business transaction with a foreign country in the past 12 months."
17% U.S., 28% U.K.
Again surprising on both fronts. FCPA-specific due diligence in M&A and other cross-border transactions is frequently preached by the enforcement agencies, but apparently companies are not getting the message, or if they are, they don't view FCPA specific due diligence as a value added exercise.
This next statistic is also surprising, particulary given (what at least appears to be from media and other reports) high anxiety levels as to the upcoming U.K. Bribery Act. I like how Miller & Chevalier states it in its recent FCPA Autumn Review 2010 (see here) - the U.K. Bribery Act "about which so much is being said and written" an issue already the "subject of lively debate and ominous forebodings" and a topic "commanding considerable commentary and concern."
"Do you foresee changes in the way your company operates due to the new U.K. Bribery Act?"
89% no - U.S.
65% no - U.K.
The following non-FCPA statistic was also interesting.
"A quarter of the companies that have conducted an internal investigation reported the matter to a regulatory agency, as a result of the investigation." I suspect that if this topic was FCPA specific the percentage would have been higher than 25%.
*****
As to FCPA, Inc. issue generally, this recent article in The Lawyer by Matt Byrne caught me eye. It discusses Shearman & Sterling's "radical strategy" to boost litigation related revenue. The article quotes N.Y. based partner Herb Washer as saying that, among other areas, FCPA-related matters are acting as a catalyst for Shearman’s litigation push. “FCPA enforcement has become an explicit priority of the Department of Justice,” says Washer. “There’s not only a greater number of cases but the fines are trending upwards. There’s very big money at risk and companies are spending big money to defend themselves against allegations. There’s no doubt this is a significant driver for the growth of our practice and many of our competitors.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
