The Companion and SEC Enforcement of the FCPA – Part II

I will use Agatha Christie’s short story The Companion as the introduction to today’s blog post. This story, related by one of the Tuesday story-telling group of detective aficionados, Dr. Lloyd, and is about two people who are related yet take different paths. It involves the death of a woman while on vacation on the Island of Gran Canaria. The deceased was named Mary Barton and she died while trying to save her companion, one Amy Durrant, from drowning. Sometime later Miss Durrant was deemed missing and presumed drowned off the coast of Cornwall. However there was a double crime as Durrant had actually drowned Barton in Gran Canaria and then faked her own death in Cornwall, however she had returned home to Australia where she actually died within a month of returning. It turned out that Durrant was a cousin to Barton and her only living relation. Since both women were now dead, Barton’s not inconsiderable estate passed on to Durrant’s children, which was her plan all along.

All of which informs today’s topic that being the difference in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement resolution tools from those used by the Department of Justice (DOJ). While both the SEC and DOJ use Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs); there are other tools in the SEC arsenal, which the DOJ does not use. These revolve around the fact that in FCPA enforcement, the DOJ handles criminal prosecution and the SEC handles things on the civil side of FCPA enforcement.

Traditionally the SEC obtains a Cease and Desist order by going to a federal district court. The FCPA Guidance states, “In a civil injunctive action, SEC seeks a court order compelling the defendant to obey the law in the future. Violating such an order can result in civil or criminal contempt proceedings. Civil contempt sanctions, brought by SEC, are remedial rather than punitive in nature and serve one of two purposes: to compensate the party injured as a result of the violation of the injunction or force compliance with the terms of the injunction.”

In most cases the defendant does not contest these Orders and there are no admissions made by the defendant regarding conduct that may have violated the FCPA. While there has been significant criticism of ‘No Admission’ settlements entered into by the SEC, these types of settlements are not expected to change where there is no corresponding criminal action. In a 2013 speech, SEC Chair Mary Jo White announced an expansion of the “admit” policy, and explained that while “neither admit nor deny” settlements would remain the norm, the SEC would now require defendants to admit wrongdoing “in certain cases where heightened accountability or acceptance of responsibility through the defendant’s admission of misconduct may be appropriate”. SEC enforcement chief, Andrew Ceresney, has added that defendants may be required to admit violations in cases of “egregious misconduct,” such as cases involving obstruction of the SEC’s investigation or harm to large numbers of investors.

However the past year or so, the SEC has moved to handle FCPA enforcement actions through an administrative process. As explained in the FCPA Guidance, “SEC has the ability to institute various types of administrative proceedings against a person or an entity that it believes has violated the law. This type of enforcement action is brought by SEC’s Enforcement Division and is litigated before an SEC administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ’s decision is subject to appeal directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission itself, and the Commission’s decision is in turn subject to review by a U.S. Court of Appeals.”

In a post on the FCPA Blog, entitled “Are Administrative Proceedings the New Civil Complaints?” Marc Alain Bohn explored this expanded use of administrative law proceedings in SEC enforcement of the FCPA, by noting, “which was facilitated in part by a 2010 Dodd-Frank amendment to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 that enables the SEC to collect civil penalties through administrative proceedings.” Moreover, Bohn noted a couple of significant differences in going through a federal district court to obtain a Cease and Desist Order and going through the SEC administrative process. He said, “FCPA cases resolved via administrative proceeding require no judicial approval, as opposed to the settlement of formal civil complaints. This distinction is important because district court judges have complicated several SEC prosecutions in recent years by demanding changes to negotiated settlements or dismissing charges or otherwise limiting claims. In addition, the imposition of a cease-and-desist order under an administrative proceeding requires only that the SEC establish a likelihood that a defendant will violate federal securities law, in contrast with the “reasonable likelihood” required by a court-ordered injunction.” [citations omitted]

The FCPA Professor has been unremitting in his criticism of this administrative settlement process, citing a complete lack of transparency in the process, among other criticisms. Mike Volkov, perhaps more charitably, wrote, “The SEC’s “new” use of administrative proceedings for FCPA cases demonstrates its unwillingness to face judicial scrutiny and undermines the effectiveness of its enforcement program. The SEC likes to play on its home turf and for some reason feels that going to court is not as important.” Whatever your view on the use of the administrative process might be I would only say that it is here to stay so you had better be ready to participate in it if you find yourself in a SEC FCPA enforcement action.

Another criticism of this process is what might be called the home court advantage. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “Firms oppose SEC’s internal enforcement process”, reporter Hazel Bradford quoted Terry Weiss, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig LLP in Atlanta, for the following “I have no problem with fairness when (a case) is brought in a federal District Court and when it is overseen by a federal District Court judge who is appointed by the president of the United States and approved by the U.S. Senate. I have a significant problem when you have (administrative law judges) who are picked by the SEC.” The problem with this argument is that ALJ’s have been a part of the federal enforcement process for a wide variety of agencies, department and issues since the 1930s. To say the SEC is using an approved administrative process that violates the Constitution seems to me to be a stretch.

Another area the SEC has in common with the DOJ in FCPA enforcement is that they both sometimes decline to bring enforcement actions. The FCPA Guidance cites back to the SEC Enforcement Manual for the “guiding principles” in determining whether the Commission will bring a FCPA enforcement action. The factors the SEC will determine, which are the same for enforcement actions against entities or individuals., are listed as follows:

• the seriousness of the conduct and potential violations;
• the resources available to SEC staff to pursue the investigation;
• the sufficiency and strength of the evidence;
• the extent of potential investor harm if an action is not commenced; and
• the age of the conduct underlying the potential violations.

It is important to understand these differences in resolution vehicles and tactics used by the SEC, separate and apart from the DOJ. The civil jurisdiction of FCPA enforcement entails some differences in approach by the SEC. It is important that any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner understand these differences in the event their company goes through a FCPA investigation or enforcement action. We saw three significant FCPA enforcement actions last fall, Smith & Wesson, Layne Christensen and Bio-Rad, where there was no corresponding DOJ FPCA enforcement action brought jointly with the SEC enforcement action. As anti-corruption compliance programs mature, it may well be that this could portend the future. Just as with The Companion simply because it appears that two are together, they may have their own separate callings. Tomorrow I review some of the unique damages available to the SEC in a FCPA enforcement action.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Are DPAs Morally Suspect?

You know it is going to be a bad day when you are excoriated in public by a sitting federal district judge. It is even worse when the comments of that federal judge make it into one of the most prominent international business dailies around; the UK based Financial Times (FT). Both of the events occurred this week when US District Judge Jed Rakoff spoke to the New York City Bar Association with his thoughts on the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve criminal matters involving corporations and his speech was reported by Kara Scannell for the FT in an article entitled “Judge says DOJ agreements are ‘morally suspect’”.

As usual Judge Rakoff pulled no punches when he declared that the DOJ’s “Use of deferred prosecution agreements to resolve criminal investigations without holding individuals accountable is technically and morally suspect.” This criticism was levelled as the “DOJ has signaled to leading banks that it will bring civil charges against them for allegedly mis-selling mortgage backed securities in the lead-up to the financial crisis.” Judge Rakoff noted that the DOJ has “not prosecuted any top Wall Street executive in relation to the financial crisis but has struck deals with companies using deferred prosecution agreement over sanction violations and money laundering without charging any individuals.” Judge Rakoff said that if prosecutors can prove a company violated laws “but do not charge individuals then its application is technically suspect.” He then went on to add that it is “morally suspect because a company is made up of sometimes hundreds of innocent employees.” But Judge Rakoff had further criticisms. He charged that DOJ prosecutors no longer have the “experience or resolve” to pursue individuals and that the current DOJ tactic of only going after individuals is “not the best way to proceed.” Pretty strong words, indeed.

This is not the first time that Judge Rakoff leveled charges at regulators for what he believed were practices “which fell short of legal standards.” Indeed, Judge Rakoff was particularly critical about the shift from the criminal prosecution of individuals to the use of DPAs to allow corporations to settle matters as he charged this change “has led to lax and dubious behaviour on the part of prosecutors.” There was much commentary when the Judge “challenged several Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] deals that allowed companies and individuals to settle civil fraud charges while not admitting or denying wrongdoing.” These comments and court cases (apparently) led the SEC to change its policy and begin to “require admissions in certain cases that were in the public interest.” Scannell’s article concluded by noting that Judge Rakoff’s dismissed the DOJ claims that “it is hard to prove criminal wrong-doing in the packaging of mortgage-backed securities and that charging entities could have a negative effect on the national economy” as simply “excuses”.

The article on Judge Rakoff’s comments indicated that they were only concerning criminal prosecutions against Wall Street executives. But his comments eerily parallel some of the ongoing debate about the use of DPAs in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) context. The FCPA Professor has consistently criticized both the use of DPAs and lack of individual prosecutions under the FCPA by the DOJ. He has also said that he believes that the DOJ have become “uncomfortable with traditional notions of corporate criminal liability”. Another commentator, David Uhlmann, has agreed with this notion by the FCPA Professor when stating, “This is about a profound ambivalence in parts of the Department about the very notion of corporate criminality.” Yet another commentator, Anthony Barkow, has said that “getting DPAs and NPAs is easy. It’s a lot easier than charging a company.”

Whether they were answering any of these criticisms or not, I think that the DOJ has certainly made clear that it will prosecute individuals who engage in FCPA violation. I agree with Mike Volkov that 2013 may well go down as “Year of the Individual Prosecution” in the FCPA context. Last spring saw prosecutions against individuals from BizJet, BSGR, Willbros and Alstom. This summer there were prosecutions against individuals in the Direct Access Partners (DAP) matter and only this fall was a prosecution against an individual involved in the Maxwell Technology matter. Based on this, at least in the FCPA context, I would have to say that the DOJ has and will continue to prosecute individuals in the context of foreign bribery.

Additionally, in the area of other types of securities fraud cases, the DOJ has very recently shown that it will aggressively pursue companies for criminal sanctions. Recently SAC Capital pled guilty to criminal fraud charges for insider trading and criminal wire fraud. There was a hefty fine of $1.8bn for this conduct.

Interestingly this week the SEC announced that it had entered into its first DPA. In a SEC Press Release, the agency announced that it had entered into a DPA “with a former hedge fund administrator who helped the agency take action against a hedge fund manager who stole investor assets.” This was due to the cooperation by the Administrator; Scott Herckis, even though Herckis aided and abetted the hedge fund at which he worked with securities law violations. The DPA also specified that Herckis “comply with certain prohibitions and undertakings.  Herckis cannot serve as a fund administrator or otherwise provide any services to any hedge fund for a period of five years, and he also cannot associate with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, or registered investment company.” He also had to “disgorge approximately $50,000 in fees he received for serving as the fund administrator.”

What does all of the above mean for the compliance practitioner? I think that when a federal judge says there should be more individual prosecutions in a certain area and his reasons echo noted commentators, it engages the debate. In the FCPA context, the debate centers around the use of DPAs and NPAs (Non-Prosecution Agreements) to settle matters with corporations. I am on record as favoring the continued use of such instruments by prosecutors to help raise compliance generally. Others feel that more individuals should be prosecuted. One thing I can say with certainty is that if you take a DPA/NPA for FCPA violations into Judge Rakoff’s court, you had better be ready to defend it, from both sides – the prosecution and the defense.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Grand Central Station, Mary Jo White and the End of No-Admission Settlements in SEC Cases?

Last week we celebrated one of the world’s great urban architectural marvels, the London Underground. This week we celebrate one a little closer to home. This week is the 100^th anniversary of Grand Central Station. In an article this week in the New York Times, (NYT), entitled “Looking Out on the Grand Central, and Looking Back on Saving It”, reporter Clyde Haberman interviewed Kent L. Barwick, former Executive Director of the Municipal Art Society, who was instrumental in the fight to save the Station in the 1970s. I knew about the legal fight that the City of New York had put up after its designation of the venerable landmark had been overturned by a state judge. This landmark case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and ended with a victory for the City of New York and the establishment of the right of a municipality to protect the public environment and its history by historic designation. What I did not know about this process was that one of its most active supporters was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, who supported the cause with time, money and effort. It was a classic effort of several processes moving forward on several fronts at once which led to this important legal decision and one of the most compelling journeys in landmark preservation.

This article came to mind when I read another article in the NYT, entitled “Make Them Pay (and Confess)” by reporter Gretchen Morgenson, about President Obama’s nomination of Mary Jo White to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Morgenson used the nomination of White to argue that the SEC has not been aggressive enough in its prosecution of financial wrongdoing during the first four years of the Obama Administration. She believes that the no-admission settlement is merely a “slap on the wrist” for companies who are guilty of securities violations involving fraud. I believe that this would include Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.

One of the techniques that she argues should be used more often and would have greater impact is requiring companies to admit to facts in settlement agreements. As most compliance practitioners know, the SEC has, in the past, allowed companies to settle without admitting or denying the findings which are the basis for the enforcement actions. Generally the SEC has supported this position arguing that by doing so this helps it “avoid costly, time-consuming litigation that would tax already-stretched resources.” In addition to time-consuming trials, there is always the possibility that the SEC could lose at trial. Further, by having quicker settlements, more victims would be getting restitution faster.

But Morgenson argues that a no-admission settlement does not really qualify as a punishment. In addition to having no precedential value going forward, because there are no facts admitted, she maintains that even the financial penalties are meaningless. This is because ultimately the fines and penalties are paid by the shareholders or the company’s insurance carrier. Such situations are “not much of a deterrent.”

Morgenson points out that Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was hired by Mrs. White when she ran the office, “has made it a priority to require admissions from defendants in civil fraud cases” brought by his office. Bharara has stated that “Such admissions are a way to hold defendants accountable, as well as being an important part of the public record.” By public record, Bharara means that plaintiffs can then use those admissions in shareholder derivative actions against corporations in tag along law suits. Do you think that the plaintiffs’ bar will be salivating over that prospect?

Morgenson discussed several reasons for the reluctance of the SEC to require such admissions of fact. The first and foremost is that you have to be ready, willing and able to go to trial. Bharara handles this in the Southern District with the following comment, “We’re not in the business of bluffing. When people know you’re not bluffing, they come to the table.” However, the SEC itself may not have this same attitude. Morgenson notes that “It won’t be easy to change the mind-set at the S.E.C. from one that regularly allows defendants to avoid culpability.” Other federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission also allow corporations to settle civil enforcement actions while not admitting to any facts.

Morgenson acknowledges that it will not be easy for the SEC to change its philosophy. Further, defendants will probably fight this change tooth and nail because they know that the cost of any settlement will increase exponentially if they make such admissions. The aforementioned plaintiffs’ bar will be waiting to jump on any corporations which make such settlements. Morgenson quotes William F. Gavin, Secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts and its securities regulator, who admitted that negotiating admissions of liability is challenging due to the fact that the cost of settlements will go up. His response, “Well, that’s kind of the idea – you did something wrong, you should be liable. You’re not going to change practices or behavior if there’s no penalty associated with it.”

Federal judges have also begun to question the use of SEC no-admission settlements. There is the quite well known example of Judge Rakoff and his initial rejection of the Citigroup settlement. A couple of other federal judges also initially rejected no-admission settlements but did so on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to enforce an injunction if there was a breach of the settlement by the defendant. Their concerns were addressed and they all eventually signed off on the SEC settlements. Now, however, Judge Richard Leon has rejected a SEC settlement with IBM, for FCPA books and records violations, as Judge Leon wanted IBM to report to the SEC if it sustained a FCPA violation going forward. IBM, with the SEC standing at its side on this point, said that to do so would be “too burdensome.” Judge Leon has set a hearing date of February 4, 2013 for IBM to present evidence of how they plan to collect the data to show that it is too burdensome. If IBM cannot do so, Judge Leon may well not approve the no-admission settlement.

Morgenson clearly wants Mary Jo White to engage in more and greater enforcement of financial fraud cases. She does not speak to FCPA cases specifically so it is not clear on whether her desire would also include FCPA books and records enforcement actions brought by the SEC when there is no criminal case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, if no-admission enforcement actions are no longer the norm in SEC financial fraud or other securities actions, this will probably also bleed over into FCPA actions. Judge Leon’s challenge to IBM and to the SEC may also portend an increasingly active judiciary which may delve into the substance of any FCPA settlement agreement with the SEC.

So for you New Yorkers out there, or any of you travelling through New York, I would suggest that the next time that you go through Grand Central Station look up with some wonder and awe at one of the true architectural marvels of the city. You may not do so as I did the first time I went through it but still take a few minutes to think that it was headed for the wrecking ball back in the 1970s, scheduled to be replaced by a skyscraper. Morgenson argues that the SEC should become more aggressive in its prosecution of financial fraud and with her prosecutorial background the agency may well be headed that way.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013