The FCPA Blog

The former country manager in Venezuela for Pride International, Inc. last week settled civil FCPA charges with the SEC.

Joe Summers, a U.S. citizen who lives in John Day, Oregon, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25,000.

From 2003 to 2005, Summers arranged payments of about $384,000 to third-party companies, "believing that all or a portion of the funds would be given to an official of Venezuela's state-owned oil company in order to secure extensions of three drilling contracts." Summers also approved a $30,000 payment through an intermediary to an employee of Venezuela's state-owned oil company to obtain the payment of receivables.

Summers' former employer, Pride International, said in February this year it has set aside $56.2 million for an expected settlement with the DOJ and SEC of FCPA offenses. The Houston-based oil-rig operator first disclosed potential compliance problems in 2006.

In December last year, the SEC accused a former Pride vice president, Bobby Benton, of violating the FCPA. The civil complaint against Benton alleged among other things that he deleted references in Pride's audits to about $384,000 in payments made by “the manager of the Venezuelan branch of a French subsidiary of Pride” to third-party companies. Pride self-disclosed the payments and cover-up after it learned about them through its internal investigation. The SEC's complaint against Summers included details about the Venezuelan bribes.

Pride has also disclosed that it found evidence of illegal payments from 2001 through 2006 directly or indirectly to government officials in Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Libya, Angola, and the Republic of the Congo. The payments related to clearing rigs and equipment through customs, resolving customs disputes, immigration, tax, licensing, and merchant marine issues.

The SEC's complaint against Summers charged him with violating Sections 13(b)(5) and 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(5) and 78dd-1] and Rule 13b2-1 [17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1], and aiding and abetting Pride's violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2)(B), and 78dd-1].

Pride International, Inc. trades on the NYSE under the symbol PDE.

View the SEC's Litigation Release No. 21617 and Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 3169 (both dated August 5, 2010) in SEC v. Joe Summers, Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-02786 (S.D. Texas, August 5, 2010) here.

Download the SEC's civil complaint against Summers here.

The debate about medical ghosting has focused on the U.S. market. But could the DOJ and SEC now be looking at the practice overseas, where it might violate the FCPA?

Main Justice reported that in April, the DOJ and SEC sent letters to AstraZeneca PLC, Baxter International Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. The letters asked about business practices in Brazil, China, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Medical ghosting works like this. Drug companies hire outside firms to draft articles touting a drug, then retain a doctor or scientist to sign off as the author. The drug company then finds a publisher, who doesn't know the article was written by someone other than the person who signed it.

Doctors and scientists eagerly participate because publication credit increases their prestige and professional standing. And the drug-companies use the medical journal articles as "independent" proof that their drugs are safe and effective.

A Senate report released last month and quoted in the New York Times said: “Manipulation of medical literature could lead physicians to prescribe drugs that are more costly or may even harm patients."

The FCPA's antibribery provisions prohibit among other things (1) the giving of anything of value (2) to a foreign official (3) to obtain or retain business. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(a) [Section 30A of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934].

Ghosting has those elements. Giving a doctor or scientist an unsigned manuscript for publication has real value. Doctors and scientists working in government-owned or managed hospitals overseas are "foreign officials" under the FCPA. And articles appearing to independently endorse a drug help its manufacturer obtain or retain business.

We don't know if medical ghosting will figure in any FCPA-related investigations of the drug companies. But it could.

Swiss logistics giant Panalpina said yesterday it has reserved about $110 million for an expected FCPA settlement with the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission and a seperate antitrust resolution. It said the settlements should happen "in the near future."

The corruption investigation dates back to at least early February 2007. The DOJ noted then in connection with Vetco's FCPA settlement that bribes in Nigeria "were paid through a major international freight forwarding and customs clearance company to employees of the Nigerian Customs Service . . .”

In the following months, about a dozen leading oil and gas-related companies received letters from the DOJ and SEC asking them to "detail their relationship with Panalpina . . . ." Shell, Schlumberger, Tidewater, Nabors Industries, Transocean, GlobalSantaFe Corp., Noble Corp. and Pride International were among those involved.

In July 2007, Panalpina disclosed that some customers of its U.S. subsidiary had “been requested by U.S. authorities to produce documents related to the provision of its services to Nigeria for a specific customer and its contractor. This request was triggered by the plea agreement of such customer with the U.S. authorities for allegedly making improper payments to Nigerian officials to secure preferential customs treatment. . . . U.S. authorities have extended the scope of their review to Panalpina’s documents related to services into Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia for a limited number of customers.”

In August 2008, Panalpina said compliance concerns had forced it to withdraw completely from the Nigerian domestic market. It had already suspended domestic logistics and freight forwarding services there in September 2007 for all oil and gas-related customers. It said then it was cooperating with the DOJ and SEC in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation.

Yesterday's full announcement, available here, said:

In view of the advanced stage of the settlement negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Panalpina has decided to reserve CHF 120 million, an amount anticipated to cover fines, other penalties and legal expenses relating to the settlement of both the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the U.S. antitrust investigations. This amount will be reflected accordingly in the company's 2010 half year financial statements. The finalization of the settlement with the U.S. authorities is expected in the near future. The above reserve does not cover other ongoing, non-U.S. antitrust investigations against the international freight forwarding industry in particular the proceeding launched by the European Commission as Panalpina is unable to predict the amount of any potential fine with certainty.

The company operates through 500 branches in 80 countries with about 13,500 employees worldwide. It serves the rest of the world through local partners.

Panalpina Welttransport (Holding) AG trades on various European exchanges, and in the U.S. OTC pink sheets under the symbol PLWTF.PK.

Special thanks to Marc Alain Bohn for help with this post.

As reported Friday, one of the 22 shot-show defendants, Daniel Alvirez, is expected to plead guilty soon to charges of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government's two-count superseding information alleged that he plotted to bribe defense officials in Africa and the Republic of Georgia.

What to expect now? We asked someone familiar with the evidence, who requested anonymity. Here's what he or she told us:

The government's video and audio tapes are of good quality and the confidential informant, Richard Bistrong, should be an effective witness despite some baggage. Overall, the cases appear to be strong and supported by ample evidence.

There are indications of more foreign bribery involving the military-equipment industry; the allegations in the first 16 indictments (available here) and the superseding information may be the tip of the iceberg. 

The Justice Department is seeking to build bigger cases against some current defendants. It may also indict other individuals.

Investigators could also be looking at involvement by some well-known industry leaders -- an Indian military-equipment supplier, three U.S. public companies, and two large private security contractors among them.

Countries and governments involved may include not just Georgia (mentioned in the superseding information) but also Peru, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, the Philippines, Colombia, and others. Representatives from some of the countries could be targeted by the Justice Department.

BAE Systems plc (BAE or BAES) pleaded guilty today in U.S. federal court in the District of Columbia to one count of conspiracy.

It admitted conspiring to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding its lawful functions, to make false statements about its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance program, and to violate the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. It was sentenced to pay a $400 million criminal fine.

BAE had announced the settlement with the DOJ and the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office on February 5. The U.S. settlement was subject to today's court approval. See our post here.

In its release, the Justice Department said from 2000 to 2002, BAE "represented to various U.S. government agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Justice, that it would create and implement policies and procedures to ensure its compliance with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, as well as similar, foreign laws implementing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-bribery Convention. According to court documents, BAES knowingly and willfully failed to create mechanisms to ensure compliance with these legal prohibitions on foreign bribery. According to court documents, the gain to BAE from the various false statements and failures to make required disclosures to the U.S. government was more than $200 million."

See our post here for a copy of the criminal information against BAE. Exhibit A is a letter John Weston, BAE's chief executive, wrote on November 16, 2000 to U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen promising that BAE was not knowingly violating the  Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other antibribery laws. 

Despite its assurances, BAE "made a series of substantial payments to shell companies and third party intermediaries" without due diligence or proper corporate controls. Some of the payments were to "marketing advisors" whose identity BAE actively concealed from the U.S. government. It also did not disclose some of the payments.

The DOJ said,

For example, after May 2001, BAES contracted with and paid certain advisors through various offshore shell companies beneficially owned by BAES. BAES also encouraged certain advisors to establish their own offshore shell companies to receive payments from BAES while disguising the origins and recipients of these payments. BAES admitted that it established one company in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) to conceal its marketing advisor relationships, including who the advisor was and how much it was paid; to create obstacles for investigating authorities to penetrate the arrangements; to circumvent laws in countries that did not allow such relationships; and to assist advisors in avoiding tax liability for payments from BAES.

Unlike the SFO's early February release and charging documents, the DOJ referred to BAE's bribery of Saudi Arabian officials for the al-Yamamah contract -- an $80 billion deal signed in the mid-1980s for the sale of jet fighters.

In today's release, the DOJ thanked the SFO for "the significant assistance provided by the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office, and further expresses its gratitude to that office for its ongoing partnership in the fight against overseas corruption."

A copy of the U.S. criminal information and the government's sentencing memorandum in U.S. v. BAE Systems plc can be downloaded here and here.