InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Houston-Based Company Disgorges $5 Million to Settle SEC Enforcement Action
In an SEC cease and desist order filed on August 11, Key Energy Services, Inc., a Houston-based provider of rig-based oil well services, agreed to disgorge $5 million to settle charges that the company violated the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA. According to the order, from August 2010 through at least April 2013, Key Energy’s Mexican subsidiary paid bribes of at least $229,000 to a contract employee at Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the Mexican state-owned oil and gas company. In exchange, the subsidiary received Pemex non-public information, advice and assistance on contracts with Pemex, and lucrative amplifications or amendments to those contracts. The funds were allegedly funneled through an entity purporting to provide consulting services, but for which there was no evidence of appropriate authorization of the relationship, and no supporting documentation regarding the purported consulting work performed. According to the SEC, the subsidiary improperly recorded the transfers to the consulting firm as legitimate business expenses, which were consolidated into Key Energy’s books and records. Key Energy allegedly failed to implement and maintain sufficient internal controls, including within the subsidiary relating to interactions with Pemex officials, and failed to respond to indications that the subsidiary was improperly using consultants.
It is notable that Key Energy was not required to pay a civil fine in addition to disgorgement. The SEC identified three reasons for accepting Key Energy’s offer of settlement and not imposing a separate civil penalty. First, the SEC praised Key Energy for cooperating with and assisting in its investigation. Key Energy was first contacted by the SEC in January 2014 concerning possible FCPA violations. In April 2014, Key Energy was informed by employees of its subsidiary of possible bribes, at which time the company reported the allegations to the SEC and “undertook a broad internal investigation and risk assessment of [its] international operations.” The SEC specifically noted that, “to the extent the internal investigation identified additional issues of concern, Key Energy provided updates to the Commission staff.”
Second, the SEC considered not only the “cooperation Key Energy afforded to the Commission staff,” but also the “remedial acts undertaken by [the company].” The SEC noted that Key Energy, during its internal review, “promptly and simultaneously undertook significant remedial measures including … a renovation and enhancement of [its] compliance program.” Specific remedial measures included (i) stronger vendor oversight; (ii) enhanced financial controls; (iii) increased training of all international employees; (iv) developing and/or reviewing policies and procedures pertaining to the FCPA, codes of business conduct, and more; and (v) a coordinated wind-down and exit from all markets outside of North America, including a commitment to exit Mexico by the end of 2016.
Finally, “in determining the disgorgement amount and not to impose a penalty,” the SEC “considered Key Energy’s current financial condition and its ability to maintain necessary cash reserves to fund its operations and meet its liabilities.” This third justification indicates the SEC is not only aware of the current financial strains within the oil and gas services sector, but is uninterested in unnecessarily putting companies out of business. It is also possible that Key Energy’s cooperation and remediation, coupled with its tenuous financial condition, factored into the DOJ’s decision in April to close its investigation of the same conduct without bringing charges.
Medical Device Manufacturer Sets Aside Reserves for DPA Breaches
On August 8, a medical device manufacturer announced in an SEC filing that it is “probable” that the company will incur additional liabilities in connection with the company’s 2012 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) related to FCPA violations in Mexico and Brazil. The company stated that it had set aside funds for this purpose, but did not specify the amount. The company’s SEC filing stated that the company “expects to continue discussions with the SEC and DOJ but the terms of a potential resolution were not certain.” Two months ago, DOJ stated in a court filing that the company had breached the DPA by failing to implement and maintain a compliance program.
Chile-Based Airline Company Settles FCPA Charges
On July 25, a Chile-based airline company agreed to settle parallel criminal and civil FCPA matters relating to alleged bribery of Argentine labor union officials through a sham consulting contract with a third party in exchange for the union accepting lower wages and other concessions. The airline company agreed to pay a total of more than $22 million, including a $12.75 million penalty as part of a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with DOJ.
As part of the DPA, the company agreed to continue cooperating with DOJ’s investigation, to make improvements to its compliance program, and to retain a compliance monitor for a period of more than two years. In the DPA and in its press release regarding the settlement, DOJ noted that it took into account certain factors that weighed against the company, including that it did not voluntarily disclose the alleged misconduct (which came to light through Argentinian press reports) or discipline the responsible employees. However, DOJ did note that the company cooperated with DOJ’s investigation once the press reports became public, and “provided all relevant facts known to it, including about individuals involved in the misconduct.”
Because of the factors weighing against the company, the penalty was within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, and the company did not receive a discount off the bottom of the range, as suggested in DOJ’s recent guidance regarding its FCPA pilot program. As stated in the guidance, in order to be eligible for full mitigation credit, a company must voluntarily disclose the FCPA violations, and the DOJ considers such disclosure as a factor separate from the company’s cooperation in the subsequent investigation. The company must also engage in timely and appropriate remediation, which includes appropriate discipline of employees identified by the company as responsible for the misconduct. The guidance specifically states that a monitor should not be required if the company “has, at the time of resolution, implemented an effective compliance program.”
In this case, one of the first under the FCPA pilot program, the DOJ followed its guidance by declining to give mitigation credit when the company did not voluntarily self-disclose and did not fully remediate. It is difficult to say what, if any, credit the company received for its cooperation once the investigation began.
At the same time, the company also settled an SEC administrative enforcement action by agreeing to pay $6.74 million in disgorgement and $2.7 million in prejudgment interest. Earlier this year, the company’s CEO separately settled with the SEC regarding the same alleged scheme, and agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty and attend anti-corruption training.
SBM Offshore Enters Into Settlement Agreement With Brazilian Authorities
On July 15, Petrobras announced that SBM Offshore NV had entered into a settlement agreement with Brazilian authorities to resolve allegations stemming from the Petrobras bribery probe. Under the terms of the agreement, the Dutch drilling company, which had been accused of paying bribes to Brazilian state-owned oil company Petrobras, will be immune to new legal actions stemming from the probe. In exchange, SBM Offshore agreed to pay approximately $342 million in fines, comprising $13.2 million to the Brazilian government and $328.2 million to Petrobras, of which $179 million “represents the nominal value to be deducted from future payments owed by Petrobras to SBM based on prevailing contracts.”
According to Petrobras, the leniency agreement is the outcome of negotiations that began in March 2015. Petrobras further stated that it will resume its normal business relationship with SBM Offshore.
The agreement is the latest settlement for SBM Offshore in connection with the Petrobras bribery probe. In 2014, SBM Offshore settled with Dutch authorities. In February 2016, SBM Offshore announced that the U.S. DOJ had re-opened its investigation into the company.
Global Technology Company Settles FCPA Charges with SEC; DOJ Issues Third Declination Letter
On July 11, a Wisconsin-based global technology company agreed, pursuant to an administrative cease and desist order and without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, to pay $14.3 million to settle the SEC’s allegations that it violated the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The charges related to actions taken by managers and employees of the company’s wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary, between 2007 and 2013, to make payments to sham vendors to effect bribes and improper payments to employees of Chinese government owned shipyards, ship-owners, and others, as well as to obtain and retain business and personally enrich the subsidiary’s employees. The company’s settlement includes a disgorgement of $11,800,000, prejudgment interest of $1,382,561, as well as a civil penalty of $1,180,000. The company also agreed to a one-year period of self-reporting to the SEC on the status of its FCPA and anti-corruption related remediation and compliance enhancements.
On the same day, the DOJ Fraud Section released a declination letter sent on June 21, 2016, to the company, in which DOJ declined prosecution of possible FCPA violations “despite the bribery by employees of [the company’s] subsidiary in China.” The DOJ letter stated that its decision is consistent with the FCPA Pilot Program , a one-year program launched in April 2016, to encourage companies “to voluntarily self-disclose FCPA-related misconduct, fully cooperate with the Fraud Section, and, where appropriate, remediate flaws in their controls and compliance programs.” DOJ determined that the company had voluntarily self-reported potential FCPA violations, conducted a thorough internal investigation, and continues to cooperate fully and remediate its internal controls.
No individuals have been charged in this matter, but DOJ noted in its declination letter that the company removed from the company all 16 employees determined to have been involved in the misconduct. The company also agreed to continue to cooperate in any ongoing investigation of individuals.
This is the third declination letter issued by the DOJ since its FCPA Pilot Program was announced it April 2016. Prior FCPA Scorecard coverage on the FCPA Pilot Program can be found here.
Massachusetts-based Imaging Company and Danish Subsidiary Settle FCPA Charges with the SEC and DOJ
On June 21, the SEC and DOJ announced a nearly $15 million settlement with a Massachusetts-based imaging company and its wholly-owned Danish subsidiary to resolve parallel civil and criminal actions involving FCPA violations. The SEC alleged that, from at least 2001 through early 2011, the subsidiary paid about $20 million to third parties in hundreds of sham transactions with distributors in Russia and shell companies in Belize, the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Seychelles. The sham transactions involved fictitious inflated invoices to the distributors with the over-payments going to third parties identified by the distributors. The subsidiary did not have a relationship with the third parties and did not know if the payments had any business purpose for the distributors.
The settlement is consistent with the settlement offer that the imaging company disclosed last December, and it reflects the company’s agreement to pay $7.67 million in disgorgement and $3.8 million in prejudgment interest to resolve the SEC’s books and records and internal controls charges, and the subsidiary’s agreement to pay $3.4 million in criminal fines in a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ. The subsidiary’s former CFO also settled with the SEC, agreeing to pay a $20,000 penalty to settle allegations that he knowingly circumvented internal controls and falsified the subsidiary’s books and records.
DOJ Determines that Indiana-Based Medical Device Manufacturer Breached FCPA Deferred Prosecution Agreement
On June 6, the DOJ filed a status report with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stating that an Indiana-based medical device manufacturer had violated its 2012 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) related to FCPA charges. Specifically, the DOJ stated that it notified the medical device manufacturer on April 15, 2016 that “the government had determined that [it] had breached the DPA based on the conduct in Mexico and Brazil and based on [its] failure to implement and maintain a compliance program as required by the DPA.”
The medical device manufacturer had settled FCPA charges with the DOJ and SEC in 2012 related to the company’s conduct in Argentina, Brazil, and China. As previously reported in the FCPA Scorecard, the company’s DPA had been extended twice since 2012: once in March 2015 because the company had discovered additional potential FCPA violations in Brazil and Mexico, and again in March 2016. According to the DOJ, the company and the DOJ are in discussions to resolve the matter without a trial.
SEC Reaches Non-Prosecution Agreements for Bribes of Chinese Officials; DOJ Declines to Pursue FCPA Enforcement Actions
On June 7, the SEC announced it had entered into non-prosecution agreements with two unrelated companies in connection with bribes paid to Chinese officials by foreign subsidiaries. First, a Massachusetts-based internet services provider agreed to pay $652,000 in disgorgement and $19,433 in interest. According to its agreement, the company’s foreign subsidiary had paid bribes to induce Chinese government-owned entities to purchase more services than they needed. Second, a Rhode Island-based residential and commercial building products manufacturer agreed to pay $291,000 in disgorgement and $30,000 in interest. According to that agreement, the company’s subsidiary made improper payments and gifts to Chinese officials in exchange for preferential treatment, relaxed regulatory oversight, and reduced customs duties, taxes, and fees. The agreements each stipulate that the companies are not charged with violations of the FCPA and will not pay any additional monetary penalties.
In support of the agreements, the SEC noted that both companies promptly self-reported the conduct and cooperated extensively with the ensuing investigations. Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit, praised the companies for “promptly tighten[ing] their internal controls after discovering the bribes and [taking] swift remedial measures to eliminate the problems.”
Also on June 7, each company released letters from the DOJ declining to pursue enforcement actions against the companies. The letters are the first public declinations issued by the DOJ under its FCPA Pilot Program announced in April 2016. The one-year Pilot Program is designed to encourage companies to voluntarily self-report potential FCPA-related misconduct and cooperate with federal investigations. DOJ declined to pursue enforcement actions based on several factors, including that the companies identified the misconduct themselves, promptly self-disclosed the misconduct, thoroughly investigated the misconduct, enhanced their compliance programs and internal accounting controls, terminated the employees responsible for the misconduct, disgorged any ill-gotten gains, fully cooperated with the federal investigations, and agreed to cooperate with any future investigations.
DOJ Closes FCPA Investigation into Onshore, Rig-based Well Servicing Contractor Without Prosecution; SEC Negotiations Continuing
On April 28, an onshore, rig-based well servicing contractor with operations in the United States, Mexico, and Russia announced that the DOJ had closed its investigation into possible violations of the FCPA in relation to the company’s Mexico operations and declined prosecution. The company stated that it is still in negotiations with the SEC regarding possible violations involving the company’s Russian business. The company has been under investigation by the SEC and DOJ since 2014, when the company made a voluntary disclosure to both agencies about the Mexico allegations.
Colorado Mining Company Announces FCPA Investigation
Recently, a gold mining company based in Colorado disclosed in its quarterly filings an investigation of certain business activities of the company and its affiliates outside the U.S. for possible violations of the FCPA. The company stated that it had hired outside counsel to assist in the investigation, and it was working with the SEC and DOJ with respect to the investigation. The company also stated that, in March 2016, it entered into one-year tolling agreements with the SEC and DOJ. The company’s recent disclosure of the investigation did not specify the nature of the business activities being investigated or where the potential misconduct took place, but the company has mining operations in Ghana, Australia, Indonesia, Peru, and Suriname.