fcpa-resource-guide

chapter 2
The FCPA:
Anti-Bribery Provisions
years after the acquisition After another employee of Company A reports the long-running bribe scheme to a director at
Foreign Government Agency, Company A stops the payments and DOJ and SEC investigate
Based on these facts, would DOJ or SEC charge Company A?
Yes DOJ and SEC have prosecuted companies like Company A in similar circumstances Any charges would not,
however, be premised upon successor liability, but rather on Company A’s post-acquisition bribe payments, which
themselves created criminal and civil liability for Company A
Scenario 3:
Under local law, Company A’s ability to conduct pre-acquisition due diligence on Foreign Company is limited In the
due diligence it does conduct, Company A determines that Foreign Company is doing business in high-risk countries
and in high-risk industries but finds no red flags specific to Foreign Company’s operations Post-acquisition, Company
A conducts extensive due diligence and determines that Foreign Company had paid bribes to officials with Foreign
Government Agency Company A takes prompt action to remediate the problem, including following the measures set
forth in Opinion Procedure Release No 08-02 Among other actions, it voluntarily discloses the misconduct to DOJ and
SEC, ensures all bribes are immediately stopped, takes remedial action against all parties involved in the corruption, and
quickly incorporates Foreign Company into a robust compliance program and Company A’s other internal controls
Based on these facts, would DOJ or SEC prosecute Company A?
DOJ and SEC have declined to prosecute companies like Company A in similar circumstances Companies can follow
the measures set forth in Opinion Procedure Release No 08-02, or seek their own opinions, where adequate pre-acquisition
due diligence is not possible
Hypothetical: Successor Liability Where Acquired Company Was Already Subject to
the FCPA
Both Company A and Company B are Delaware corporations with their principal offices in the United States Both
companies’ shares are listed on a national U S exchange
Scenario 1:
Company A is considering acquiring several of Company B’s business lines Prior to the acquisition, Company A engages
in extensive due diligence, including: (1) having its legal, accounting, and compliance departments review Company B’s
sales and financial data, its customer contracts, and its third-party and distributor agreements; (2) performing a risk-based
analysis of Company B’s customer base; (3) performing an audit of selected transactions engaged in by Company B; and
(4) engaging in discussions with Company B’s general counsel, vice president of sales, and head of internal audit regarding
all corruption risks, compliance efforts, and any other major corruption-related issues that have surfaced at Company B
over the past ten years This due diligence aims to determine whether Company B has appropriate anti-corruption and
compliance policies in place, whether Company B’s employees have been adequately trained regarding those policies,
how Company B ensures that those policies are followed, and what remedial actions are taken if the policies are violated
During the course of its due diligence, Company A learns that Company B has made several potentially improper
payments in connection with a government contract with Foreign Country As a condition of the acquisition, Company A
requires Company B to disclose the misconduct to the government Company A makes certain that the illegal payments
(cont’d)
32