Richard L. Cassin Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman Senior Editor

Elizabeth K. Spahn Editor Emeritus

Cody Worthington Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn Contributing Editor

Bill Waite Contributing Editor

Shruti J. Shah Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong Contributing Editor 

Eric Carlson Contributing Editor

Bill Steinman Contributing Editor

Aarti Maharaj Contributing Editor

FCPA Blog Daily News

« Alcatel-Lucent's $10 Million Question | Main | Recent Cases, Foreign Companies Dominate New Top Ten »

The Cost Of Recalcitrance

Last month, Alcatel-Lucent and three subsidiaries settled FCPA-related charges. They paid $92 million to resolve criminal charges with the DOJ and $45 million in disgorgement to the SEC. Let's look at the criminal fine.

In the deferred prosecution agreement, the DOJ recited some of the good works Alcatel-Lucent had done to deserve the settlement: (1) it conducted a global investigation into possible corruption, (2) it self-reported the findings to the U.S. government, (3) it fired employees involved in bribery and adopted a new compliance program, and (4) it stopped using agents and intermediaries.

But buried inside that recitation of good works was something else -- a statement that Alcatel-Lucent hadn't always been helpful. "[A]fter limited and inadequate cooperation for a substantial period of time, Alcatel-Lucent substantially improved its cooperation with the [DOJ's] investigation in this matter, as well as the SEC's investigation."

What's that mean?

In its computations under the federal sentencing guidelines, the DOJ penalized Alcatel-Lucent. Instead of awarding the company the usual 2 points for cooperation, it awarded just one. How much difference did that make? A lot. Based on outcomes in other cases, that single withheld point may have been worth more than $20 million.

That's our number. The DOJ didn't put a price tag on the withheld point. It referred to it, however, in its release about the settlement: "The charging documents and penalty reflect, among other things, that there was limited and inadequate cooperation by the company for a substantial period of time, but that after the merger, Alcatel-Lucent substantially improved its cooperation with the department’s investigation."

Here's the math:

Alcatel-Lucent paid a criminal penalty of $92 million. Its fine range calculated under the federal sentencing guidelines started at $86 million. So it paid a premium of about 7%.

For comparison, Daimler's fine range started at $116 million. But it received 2 points for cooperation and paid a criminal penalty of $93.6 million, a 20% discount.

Control Components Inc. received full credit for cooperation. It paid an $18.2 million criminal fine, representing a 35% discount from the start of its fine range of $27.9 million.

ABB received full credit for cooperation but lost points because of an earlier FCPA offense. It paid a criminal fine of $28.5 million, the same amount as the start of its fine range under the guidelines.

Finally, BAE -- also initially recalcitrant -- was penalized a point for cooperation, just like Alcatel-Lucent. BAE's fine range, using a gain/loss calculation that was the most unfavorable to the defendant, started at $360 million. BAE paid a criminal penalty of $400 million, an 11% premium.

So, coming back to Alcatel-Lucent, how much did its initial non-cooperation cost? Measured against other cases, the company probably lost a discount of at least 20% and instead paid a premium of 7%. That would equate to a criminal penalty of about $23 million more than a fully cooperating defendant in the same circumstances may have paid. 


View the DOJ's December 27, 2010 release here.

Download the criminal information in US v. Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. here.

Download the deferred prosecution agreement in US v. Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. here.

Download the criminal information in US v. Alcatel-Lucent France, S.A. et al here.

Download the plea agreement in US v. Alcatel Centroamerica, S.A. (Costa Rica) here.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.