April 19, 2014

Pfizer FCPA Settlement Emphasizes the Importance of Robust Compliance Programs for the Healthcare Industry

The healthcare industry has been under increased SEC and DOJ scrutiny lately for potential FCPA violations. What has been described as an “industry sweep,” has focused primarily on medical device and pharmaceutical companies. These companies are particularly vulnerable to FCPA violations because the DOJ and the SEC have taken the stance that employees of state-owned and state-controlled hospitals or health care providers are considered “foreign officials” under the FCPA. For example, in 2012, enforcement actions against Smith & Nephew, Biomet, Orthofix, and Pfizer were all partly based on this enforcement theory. Enforcement actions such as these typically arise from the efforts of a company, its subsidiaries, or its distributors to influence doctors and other officials to purchase, prescribe, or obtain government regulatory approvals and registrations for a company’s products.

The Pfizer settlement with the DOJ and the SEC, announced on August 7, 2012, is the latest FCPA settlement in the medical device industry. The enforcement action against Pfizer arose, in part, out of improper payments, including hospitality and travel expenses, made to doctors and health care professionals employed by government-controlled or owned healthcare providers in countries such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Italy, China, Serbia and Russia. As part of this settlement, Pfizer H.C.P., a Pfizer subsidiary, agreed to pay a $15 million criminal fine. Wyeth LLC, another Pfizer subsidiary, also agreed to pay $18.8 million in disgorgement of profits, including pre-judgment interest, to resolve concerns involving the conduct of Wyeth subsidiaries. Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay more than $23.6 million in disgorgement of profits, including prejudgment interest, to resolve concerns involving the conduct of its subsidiaries. The government did not pursue a criminal plea.

Importantly, Pfizer had a pre-existing compliance program in place, it self-reported potential violations, and undertook extensive remedial efforts to assess and investigate the company’s relationships with doctors and employees of government-owned hospitals and healthcare providers. Nonetheless, the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Pfizer (DPA) imposed specific and detailed requirements to bolster Pfizer’s compliance programs.

For example, Pfizer is required to improve upon its existing compliance procedures to prevent potential FCPA violations such as by conducting biannual training of employees and executives as well as triennial training of third parties whose activities may bring them under the reach of the FCPA. Similarly, Pfizer is required to continue to maintain controls over its compliance policies such as those addressing gift-giving and hospitality expenditures to government officials and to closely monitor compliance with these policies. Pfizer is also required to conduct periodic testing of compliance efforts and institute due diligence procedures for acquisition targets and third parties. Because of the high level of detail in the DPA, the requirements imposed on Pfizer are a helpful guide for drafting, implementing, and improving FCPA compliance programs.

The SEC and the DOJ further emphasized the importance of effective compliance programs in the recent FCPA Resource Guide released on November 14, 2012. A presentation discussing the “hallmarks of effective compliance programs” as identified in the Resource Guide is availablehere.

Copyright © 2014, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author


Bora Rawcliffe is an associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.