May 24, 2012

Record FCPA Settlements Continue, Important Lessons To Be Learned

The trend of record-breaking settlements under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) continued last week when, on November 4, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that the agencies had reached settlements totaling more than $236 million with seven oil and gas and oilfield services companies. The settling companies and the combined criminal fines and civil penalties were Panalpina, Inc. ($81.84 million), Pride International, Inc. ($56.12 million), Royal Dutch Shell plc ($48.14 million), Transocean, Inc. ($20.7 million), Tidewater, Inc. ($15.45 million), Noble Corp. ($8.16 million), and GlobalSantaFe Corp. ($5.8 million). Not only was this the largest number of companies to simultaneously settle FCPA investigations, three of the settlements have joined the list of the highest ten FCPA settlements of all time. Companies can take several important lessons from these settlements.

These settlements arose from a three-year FCPA investigation conducted jointly by the DOJ and SEC relating to the use of the Swiss freight forwarding company Panalpina by these and other companies in Nigeria and elsewhere. The government alleged, among other things, that Panalpina was paying bribes on behalf of its oil and oilfield services company customers to customs officials in Nigeria and elsewhere to disregard certain regulatory requirements relating to the importation of drilling rigs, vessels, materials, and goods.

Andrews Kurth’s Corporate Compliance, Investigations and Defense team was actively involved in the investigation through the firm’s representation of the audit committee of another oilfield services company that also used Panalpina in Nigeria. Following an extensive and thorough independent investigation, Andrews Kurth’s client was able to fully resolve all FCPA-related issues with the government earlier this year, with no enforcement action by the SEC, no action by the DOJ, and no fines or penalties of any kind.

What lessons can companies take from these recent settlements:  

  • The FCPA continues to be one of the highest enforcement priorities of the SEC/DOJ and this is not likely to change any time soon. The SEC recently established an enforcement unit dedicated solely to investigation of the FCPA, and senior DOJ officials continue to publicly espouse that FCPA-related prosecutions are one of the agency’s top priorities.
     
  • It is important for company management and the board of directors to exercise the proper “tone at the top” and to diligently follow up on indications of improper activity by company employees and agents abroad. Not only is this likely to prevent FCPA violations, but in the event a violation is detected, it will help ensure that the company is favorably viewed by the government in any potential investigation and is able to secure the most favorable resolution of such investigation. Indeed, in some instances this culture of corporate compliance could lead to no government enforcement action at all.
     
  • A company must have up-to-date FCPA policies, procedures, training, and strong internal controls. These FCPA compliance measures should be periodically reviewed to ensure that they continue to be effective in the changing international business climate.
     
  • FCPA due diligence should be vigorous and meaningful, especially when the company retains foreign agents and service providers, including large companies like Panalpina.
     
  • When a potential FCPA issue arises, a company must take immediate remedial action, including implementing enhanced controls, disciplining responsible employees, terminating any responsible agents or consultants, and maintaining the integrity of all paper and electronic information that may be relevant to the potential violation.
     
  • A public company should always give due consideration to its disclosure obligations when a potential FCPA violation is identified, including the possible need to make disclosure of any internal investigation to its shareholders. Consideration also should be given to self-reporting to the government when a violation is detected, which is often the best practice to follow.

In conclusion, a company can best position itself now—before the advent of any potential FCPA violation—by learning from the lessons in the Panalpina cases to minimize the possibility and consequences of any FCPA violation that may occur in the future.

Please note, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and depend on the facts of each matter. 

Click here to subscribe to future Andrews Kurth alerts.

© 2012 Andrews Kurth LLP

About the Author

Partner

Paul has a broad litigation practice, with the primary focus of representing companies in the energy sector in commercial litigation, corporate investigations and related matters.

In the area of litigation, Paul has extensive experience in both state and federal courts, including commercial, oil and gas, copyright and real estate litigation. He has both prosecuted and defended cases involving claims of breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference and numerous other matters.

His experience in corporate investigations has included...

713.220.3897

Contributors

Partner

Dena Palermo’s litigation practice focuses on the trial of commercial cases and corporate investigations.

Dena has extensive experience representing prominent individuals and corporations in business disputes in state and federal courts. In litigation matters, she has successfully handled disputes involving breach of contracts, securities fraud, lender liability, breach of fiduciary obligations, fraud, medical malpractice, individual and mass toxic torts, real estate and tortious interference. Dena has also been involved in e-discovery litigation and counseling. ...

713.220.3846

About the Author

Partner

Spence is the leader of Andrews Kurth's corporate governance and securities enforcement team. He has extensive experience defending regulatory and government investigations and civil and criminal litigation initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, FINRA, stock exchanges and state attorney general and regulatory bodies. Spence's clients include domestic and foreign public companies, financial institutions, private equity funds, accounting firms, oil and gas ventures, law firms and individual attorneys, and small...

214.659.4685

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 www.NatLawReview.com 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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.