Grand jury hears Avon FCPA case
Avon Products Inc. is learning that makeup cant conceal all blemishes.
February 13, 2012 at 06:02 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Avon Products Inc. is learning that makeup can't conceal all blemishes.
Last fall, federal prosecutors began investigating the New York-based cosmetics company for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Today the Wall Street Journal reported that prosecutors recently presented evidence to a grand jury in the case against Avon.
Prosecutors are focusing on a 2005 internal audit report, in which Avon determined that employees in China may have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to bribe Chinese officials. Avon previously had claimed it first learned of the bribery allegations in 2008, at which time it launched its own investigation into the misconduct.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether current or former Avon executives ignored the 2005 audit's findings. Two people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that Avon executives didn't disclose the audit's findings to the board until 2008.
Avon executives could be held liable for the alleged bribery through a concept known as willful blindness, or avoiding learning of wrongdoing, even though they didn't authorize illegal payments or try to hide evidence of the bribes.
Several high-ranking Avon executives were terminated following the probe. The company fired Vice Chairman Charles Cramb on Jan. 29, and it also fired Ian Rossetter, head of global internal audit and security, in May 2011. Last year, Avon fired three of its Chinese executives, including the general manager of the company's Chinese unit, the CFO of the Chinese unit and the head of corporate affairs for China.
The case also has tarnished the reputation of Avon's 12-year CEO Andrea Jung, who said in December 2011 that she would step down from her post once the company found a replacement.
Read the Wall Street Journal for more about the case.
Last fall, federal prosecutors began investigating the New York-based cosmetics company for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Today the Wall Street Journal reported that prosecutors recently presented evidence to a grand jury in the case against Avon.
Prosecutors are focusing on a 2005 internal audit report, in which Avon determined that employees in China may have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to bribe Chinese officials. Avon previously had claimed it first learned of the bribery allegations in 2008, at which time it launched its own investigation into the misconduct.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether current or former Avon executives ignored the 2005 audit's findings. Two people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that Avon executives didn't disclose the audit's findings to the board until 2008.
Avon executives could be held liable for the alleged bribery through a concept known as willful blindness, or avoiding learning of wrongdoing, even though they didn't authorize illegal payments or try to hide evidence of the bribes.
Several high-ranking Avon executives were terminated following the probe. The company fired Vice Chairman Charles Cramb on Jan. 29, and it also fired Ian Rossetter, head of global internal audit and security, in May 2011. Last year, Avon fired three of its Chinese executives, including the general manager of the company's Chinese unit, the CFO of the Chinese unit and the head of corporate affairs for China.
The case also has tarnished the reputation of Avon's 12-year CEO Andrea Jung, who said in December 2011 that she would step down from her post once the company found a replacement.
Read the Wall Street Journal for more about the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250