October 16, 2018

October 16, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 15, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Goodyear’s Settlement with the SEC Emphasizes the Importance of FCPA Due Diligence in M&A Transactions and of Having a Robust Anti-Corruption Policy

On February 24, 2015, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle charges that two of its subsidiaries allegedly paid $3.2 million in bribes that generated $14,122,535 in illicit profits.  The SEC alleged that Goodyear’s Kenyan subsidiary, Treadsetters Tyres Ltd., and its Angolan subsidiary, Trentyre Angola Lda., routinely bribed officials, government-owned entities, and employees of private companies to obtain sales, and wrote them off as legitimate business expenses in Goodyear’s books and records, in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  According to the SEC, Goodyear’s “lax compliance controls” allowed subsidiaries to engage in an undetected bribery scheme hidden in Goodyear’s books for years.

This settlement demonstrates that thorough, risk-based FCPA due diligence during the M&A process is critical to protecting parent companies from any improper activity on the part of their target companies.  After acquiring majority ownership over Treadsetters in 2006, the subsidiary continued to be managed by its founders and general manager.  From 2007 through 2011, Treadsetters’ management regularly authorized and paid bribes; a practice that “appears to have been in place prior to Goodyear’s acquisition of Treadsetters.”

Companies are liable under the FCPA for the actions of their subsidiaries, and parent companies inherit liability for the past (and continuing) corrupt activities of their target companies.  In the Goodyear case, two local companies in Kenya and Angola (ranked, respectively, 145 and 161 out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index), allegedly continued to bribe to win business for years after Goodyear acquired them.

Risk-based FCPA due diligence during the M&A process is critical because, if a parent company learns of improper activity before the deal is signed, the parent company can require the target company to remediate prior to acquisition, reevaluate the target company’s value in light of any potential FCPA penalties or forced closure of revenue streams due to corrupt contracts, or back out of the deal entirely.  If, in a worst-case scenario, despite thorough risk-based due diligence, the parent company learns of the target company’s corrupt activity after the deal signed, the SEC and DOJ have stated that the due diligence will be “taken into account when evaluating any potential enforcement action.”

The Goodyear case also highlights the importance of having – and enforcing – a robust anti-corruption compliance program which includes adequate internal controls.  Goodyear quickly launched an internal investigation following a tip received via its ethics hotline and an employee’s report.  It voluntarily disclosed the results of its investigation to the SEC, which lauded Goodyear for its cooperation and remediation, including cutting its ties with the allegedly corrupt subsidiaries.  Following the trend of other recent SEC FCPA actions, including Ralph Lauren’s and Johnson & Johnson’s recent declination and settlement, the SEC rewarded Goodyear for its self-disclosure and cooperation with a lighter fine.

©1994-2018 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Paul E. Pelletier, Biotech Attorney, Mintz Levin, Medical Device Lawsuit Counsel
Member

Paul specializes in representing public and private companies of all sizes and high-profile individuals in state and federal investigations. He represents clients across various industries, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, and financial services. He enjoys a reputation as one of the top white-collar lawyers in the country, recognized for investigating complex international corporate fraud schemes. Paul defends and resolves large, multi-faceted federal and state investigations arising under criminal and civil statutes barring, among other things, the submission of...

202-434-7490
Jane Haviland, Securities Attorney, Mintz Levin Law Firm
Associate

Jane’s practice in litigation is supported by her experience with the Office of the State Auditor in Massachusetts and her service as a law clerk and legal intern.

While with the Office of the State Auditor, Jane worked directly with auditors to outline, organize, and compose initial drafts of audit reports to highlight significant findings and make clear and concise recommendations to the auditee. She also performed legal research and analysis of the General Laws and Code of Massachusetts Regulations in order to confirm that auditees complied...

617.348.4473