Books
  • Bribery Abroad: Lessons from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    Bribery Abroad: Lessons from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    by Richard L. Cassin
  • Bribery Everywhere: Chronicles From The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    Bribery Everywhere: Chronicles From The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    by Richard L. Cassin
Sponsors

 

 

 

Powered by Squarespace

Entries in Medical Devices (17)

Wednesday
13Jan2010

Surfing The SFO

Director Richard Alderman says, "The Serious Fraud Office has changed significantly over the past year. We have become much more proactive and innovative in our approach to combating serious fraud and corruption." The Financial Times reported Thursday that David Mabey, the former head of British construction firm Mabey & Johnson Ltd, will be charged by the Serious Fraud Office with false accounting and breaching the United Nations' sanctions on Iraq.

Mabey & Johnson was sentenced in September last year by an English court for overseas corruption and violating the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The bridge-building specialist paid £6.6 million in criminal fines and related assessments. It had pleaded guilty to bribing officials in Jamaica and Ghana to win public contracts, and paying more than £123,000 to the pre-war Iraqi regime in violation of U.N. sanctions. The privately-held company was also required to retain and pay for an SFO-approved compliance monitor.

The press report said David Mabey is scheduled to appear at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on February 2. It said,

The prosecution of Mr Mabey highlights a new potential legal pitfall facing existing directors and those aiming for boardroom jobs. Follow-on criminal cases against individual directors in corrupt businesses are common in the U.S., where prosecutors have for many years successfully used companies' confessions as platforms to pick off executives allegedly involved.

*   *   *

In December, the SFO charged a former executive of a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary with overseas corruption. Robert John Dougall, 44, an ex-vice president of DePuy International Limited, was accused of making corrupt payments to medical professionals in the Greek public healthcare system in order to sell orthopaedic products. A copy of the SFO's December 1 announcement is here.

In February 2007, Johnson & Johnson said it had "voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that subsidiaries outside the United States are believed to have made improper payments in connection with the sale of medical devices in two small-market countries. "

DePuy and four other orthopedic device makers -- Biomet, Zimmer, Smith & Nephew and Stryker -- agreed in September 2007 to pay $310 million to settle charges they paid kickbacks to induce U.S. doctors to buy their products. Since the U.S. settlement, the four companies, along with Medtronic Inc. and Wright Medical Group, have disclosed DOJ and SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations. 

*   *   *

The SFO's website says the agency is "an independent Government department that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud and corruption." It's part of the U.K. criminal justice system with jurisdiction in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The director (Richard Alderman, above) is appointed by and accountable to the attorney general (Baroness Scotland).

*   *   *

The SFO now has about 80 ongoing cases and is pushing for enactment of the new Bribery Bill. In November the bill was sent to the House of Lords. The Ministry of Justice says the legislation would replace the "fragmented and complex offences at common law and in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889-191." It would also create two general offences -- paying or offering bribes, and asking for or receiving bribes. Like the FCPA, it would create a separate offence of bribery of a foreign public official, and add a new corporate offence of failing to prevent a bribe being paid on the company's behalf. See our post here.

Tuesday
01Dec2009

Ex-Johnson & Johnson Exec Charged In U.K.

Britain's Serious Fraud Office charged a former executive of a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary with overseas corruption. Robert John Dougall, 44, an ex-vice president of DePuy International Limited of Leeds, appeared Tuesday in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. He's accused of making corrupt payments to medical professionals in the Greek public healthcare system in order to sell orthopaedic products. The conduct allegedly occurred between February 2002 and December 2005.

The summons charged Dougall with conspiracy to corrupt in violation of the Criminal Law Act 1977. He was released on unconditional bail. A copy of the SFO's December 1 announcement is here.

The SFO said it began working on the case in March 2008. In February 2007, Johnson & Johnson said it had "voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that subsidiaries outside the United States are believed to have made improper payments in connection with the sale of medical devices in two small-market countries. " The company said then that Michael J. Dormer, the officer responsible for the overseas medical device business, had accepted responsibility and retired.

In September 2007, DePuy and four other orthopedic device makers -- Biomet, Zimmer, Smith & Nephew and Stryker -- agreed to pay $310 million to settle charges they paid kickbacks to induce U.S. doctors to buy their products. Since the U.S. settlement, the four companies, along with Medtronic Inc. and Wright Medical Group, have disclosed DOJ and SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations. 

The Serious Fraud Office -- which has a new-look website and says it now has 88 ongoing cases -- didn't say if DePuy or others will also face charges.

Thursday
12Nov2009

He Said, We Said

On November 12, 2009, there was a lot of tough talk from the DOJ's Lanny Breuer (left). The new chief of the criminal division warned pharmaceutical companies and executives about their exposure under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He said, "Our focus and resolve in the FCPA area will not abate, and we will be intensely focused on rooting out foreign bribery in your industry. That will mean investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of corporations to be sure, but also investigation and prosecution of senior executives."

He was speaking at an annual pharma compliance confab in Washington. A copy of his remarks can be downloaded here.

On September 3, 2009, the FCPA Blog said:

Will drug makers be the target of the next industry-wide Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation, following in the footsteps of the oil and gas services companies and orthopedic device makers? It's possible. Their sales practices are in the news a lot these days. And amid the healthcare debate, drug-company behavior anywhere invites attention in Washington and beyond.

Remember the orthopedic device makers? Like Pfizer this week and Eli Lilly earlier this year, they resolved enforcement actions based on illegal domestic sales practices. Soon after, most of them disclosed that the DOJ and SEC were looking into their overseas marketing methods for any FCPA offenses. Those investigations are ongoing. . . .

*   *   *

Thanks to everyone who made the jump with us here to our new site. Some readers let us know what needed fixing, which was helpful. We're especially grateful for our webmaster's hard work and patience.

Tuesday
11Aug2009

An Abundance Of Caution

The Justice Department last week issued its first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Opinion Procedure Release of the year. The Requestor in Release No. 09-01 is a medical device maker that wants to introduce its product to a foreign government. Unlike its few global competitors, it isn't well known in the target country. To introduce itself, it plans to donate samples to government health centers -- ten devices for ten different centers -- worth $19,000 each or $1.9 million for all 100 units.

The medical centers will select the 100 ultimate recipients of the devices. All candidates will have to be financially needy and generally can't be family members of government officials.

The DOJ said the Requestor's plan won't trigger any FCPA enforcement action. Why not? Because the donated devices won't go to government officials but to needy patients. Bottom line: No foreign official, no FCPA offense.

Sound familiar? It should. The same question came up in FCPA Opinion Procedure Releases No. 97-02 (November 5, 1997) and No. 06-01 (October 16, 2006). We talked about them here. So if the question's been asked and answered twice already, why did this Requestor ask again? Probably because medical device makers have been feeling the heat of the FCPA.

The DOJ and SEC are investigating their overseas sales practices. In 2007, Depuy and four other device makers paid $310 million to settle charges they paid kickbacks to induce U.S. doctors to buy their products. The same year, Johnson & Johnson (which owns Depuy) self-disclosed that "subsidiaries outside the United States are believed to have made improper payments in connection with the sale of medical devices in two small-market countries." So the SEC and DOJ want to know whether the companies bribed overseas doctors at government-owned hospitals to use their products.

Biomet Inc., Stryker Corp., Zimmer Holdings Inc., Smith & Nephew plc and Medtronic Inc. disclosed FCPA investigations during 2007; Wright Medical reported a similar investigation in June 2008.

View a copy of Opinion Procedure Release No. 09-01 (August 3, 2009) here.
.

Wednesday
15Apr2009

More On The Monitors

Ah, Spring. And the corporate compliance monitors are back in the news. Here's what's happening:

It's an annual event. Democrats in Congress have re-introduced a bill from last year to regulate the way monitors are selected, paid and held accountable. The Project on Government Oversight has a nice report here. The retitled "Accountability in Deferred Prosecution Act of 2009" can be downloaded here.

Two of the bill's sponsors are from New Jersey, where the big flap about monitors first started. In late 2007, New Jersey's U.S. Attorney Chris Christie used deferred prosecution agreements to settle domestic bribery charges against orthopedic device makers. To monitor their compliance, he selected former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Debra Yang, former New Jersey Attorney General David Samson, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan David N. Kelly, and former counsel to the Federal Trade Commission during the Reagan Administration John Carley.

Sticker shock. The monitors were seen as being close to Christie. On top of that, his ex-boss John Ashcroft's monitorship had a price tag of $28 million to $52 million for 18 months of work. Democratic lawmakers (and plenty of Republicans) were unhappy to learn that federal prosecutors, acting alone, could tap party big shots and friends for such lucrative (part-time) posts. In early 2008, Congress launched investigations into all aspects of the monitors -- their appointment, pay, oversight and reporting responsibilities -- and even whether deferred prosecution agreements make sense in the first place. The hearings ended without any action by the Congress.

Where are they now? The orthopedic device makers completed their deferred prosecution agreements a couple of weeks ago. In their September 2007 settlements, they together paid $310 million to resolve charges that they bribed U.S. doctors to buy their products. After that, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating whether the companies also gave kick-backs to overseas doctors employed by government-owned hospitals. Such payments could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Biomet Inc., Stryker Corp., Zimmer Holdings Inc., Smith & Nephew plc and Medtronic Inc. disclosed FCPA investigations during 2007 and Wright Medical reported a similar investigation in June 2008.

Christie, meanwhile, resigned as New Jersey's U.S. Attorney in November 2008 and is running for governor as a Republican. In recent days he's had to defend his anti-corruption image against charges concerning the monitor appointments. The AP's report is here. "At issue," the AP says, "is Christie's acceptance of campaign cash from Herbert Stern, a former monitor for the state's medical and dental school, and his choice of two other monitors with whom he had prior ties: John Ashcroft, the former U.S. attorney general and Christie's old Justice Department boss, and David Kelley, a former U.S. attorney in Manhattan who investigated a stock fraud case involving Christie's younger brother, Todd, but declined to prosecute him." Christie, 46, says he's done nothing wrong.

Don't need 'em, don't want 'em. The always-resourceful Corporate Crime Reporter has a neat story dated April 3, 2009 titled, Guess Which U.S. Attorney Doesn’t Do Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements? It's Philadelphia. Linda Dale Hoffa, the office's Criminal Division chief since 1984, said this:

We haven’t done [deferred prosecution agreements] because we think it’s better to make a clear bright line decision that we are prosecuting or not prosecuting. There is either sufficient evidence to prosecute or not to prosecute. A deferred prosecution agreement can be more of a gray area. If the crime is serious enough, and it is warranted, then we will bring a prosecution. It’s not a written policy. But it has been the practice in our office.
She also said it's the same with non-prosecution agreements. Either the office makes a decision to prosecute or to decline to prosecute, in which case "we close our file.”
.