Regulatory: 7 points to consider in regard to FCPA due diligence
Focus on the acts of joint venture partners and agents
April 25, 2012 at 07:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The risks associated with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) liability for the actions of joint venture partners and agents have never been higher, with companies operating outside the U.S. facing significant pressure to conduct adequate due diligence to protect themselves from liability for the conduct and acts of their joint venture partners and foreign agents.
A March 30 order requiring Jeffrey Tesler, a former agent of Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), to report to federal prison on April 17 to begin serving his 21-month sentence based on his guilty plea to violating the FCPA, is a stark reminder of the risks associated with failing to conduct adequate due diligence of joint venture partners and agents. Tesler's guilty plea, and subsequent sentence, is a reminder that companies operating outside the U.S. must carefully weigh the costs and benefits of conducting due diligence of their joint venture partners and foreign agents.
The FCPA applies to specified entities as well as their officers, directors, employees and agents. The bad acts on the part of a company's foreign subcontractors, joint venture partners or suppliers may be imputed to the company if these actors are deemed agents of the company. Given this potential liability and the continued focus on FCPA investigations by the DOJ and the SEC, companies should consider the level of due diligence that it should conduct when contracting with, or engaging, any joint venture partners or foreign agent (partner entity).
An understanding of the actions that led to Tesler's conviction and sentence are instructive. A four-company joint venture that included KBR, Snamprogetti, Technip S.A. and a Japanese company, hired Tesler to broker deals with Nigeria LNG Ltd., the Nigerian government's natural gas company. Under the guise of advisory and marketing services, Tesler was paid significant sums of money totaling $132 million from 1995 to 2004, which was used to bribe Nigerian officials.
As a result of Tesler's actions, the joint venture obtained four contracts totaling $6 billion. Ultimately, Tesler's actions resulted in FCPA liability for Tesler as well as the joint venture partners. In addition to Tesler, the former CEO of KBR, Albert Stanley, and a former VP of KBR, Wojciech Chodan, also were convicted and sentenced for their roles in the scheme.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that companies need to conduct a risk assessment to identify whether the industries and countries they are operating in present potential risk for FCPA liability. If so, the companies should then consider the costs and benefits of increased compliance and due diligence efforts. In order to minimize the risk of liability, companies should consider, among other things, conducting due diligence to determine:
- Ownership and management to determine, in part, whether there is any direct or indirect government ownership, interest or influence of the partner entity
- Whether any of the partner entity's officers or owners have ever been suspended or barred from doing business with a government entity
- The partner entity's reputation
Once the appropriate level of due diligence is completed, at the contracting stage companies should consider, among other things:
- Obtaining certifications of compliance with the FCPA and UK Bribery Act from the partner entity
- Requiring that the partner entity commit that it will not deal with any prohibited countries (e.g., Cuba, Iran)
- Including termination clauses that would allow for immediate, unilateral termination of the contract if the partner entity fails to comply with the FCPA or other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws
- Contracting for ongoing audit rights in order to ensure the partner entity is complying with GAAP and to have transparency of any transactions with the foreign government
Finally, companies should consider requiring that the partner entity implement a rigorous code of business conduct and ethics.
In sum, companies should be proactive in evaluating their risk for potential FCPA violations and address any risks in their contracting and oversight of joint venture partners and agents. Given the ongoing government focus on the FCPA and severity of penalties, evaluating risk and robust contracting and compliance procedures aimed at preventing such risk are a best practice.
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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 2Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 3High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 4Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
- 5Selling Law. How to Get Hired, Paid and Rehired
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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