Compliance: FCPA diligence in M&A transactions
Inside counsel would be wise to consider the significant recent increase in enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act when conducting due diligence on M&A.
December 18, 2013 at 03:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Inside counsel would be wise to consider the significant recent increase in enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977, as amended when conducting due diligence in connection with an acquisition of a foreign target or a target with international operations, because the target's conduct may be your company's FCPA liability upon consummation of the acquisition, even if, in the case of a foreign target with no prior nexus to the United States, the target's conduct is not in violation of the FCPA prior to the acquisition.
The FCPA prohibits U.S. citizens and U.S. companies, and their officers, directors and employees, from offering, promising, making or authorizing corrupt payments or gifts of anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of influencing a foreign official's decision, inducing a foreign official to violate his or her duty or gaining an unfair business advantage. Foreign citizens and foreign companies undertaking any part of such activities in U.S. territory or in interstate commerce are also subject to the law. The FCPA also mandates certain financial controls and financial reporting requirements on U.S. public companies. The law is interpreted broadly. A gift or payment can be cash, an expensive holiday gift, a donation to the official's favorite charity or, possibly, a job for a foreign official's child. A foreign official can be any employee or officer of any foreign government or any department, instrumentality or agency of a foreign government, including an officer or employee of a state-owned or state-controlled company, or a candidate for foreign political office.
Due diligence considerations
Early-stage FCPA due diligence should begin with background checks on the target and the target's countries of operation and interviews with key personnel and agents. Based on this, inside counsel can determine the level of due diligence required. Here are some things to consider:
- How corrupt are the countries where the target operates?
- How extensive and important are contacts with foreign officials and what are the reputations of the foreign officials affecting the target's business? For example, does the target sell products or services to a state-owned enterprise? Does it partner with a national resource company? Does it seek financing from a sovereign wealth fund? Does its success depend on authorizations, waivers, permits or licenses from a government department? Did it do so in the not-so-distant past?
- Consider the target's reputation and track record regarding corruption. Is it generally in compliance with the laws regulating its business?
- Does the target have an anti-corruption compliance program and how seriously is it taken by senior management? Is training a key component? Does it vet its employees? What is the reporting process?
- Are credible and reliable financial and accounting controls in place to detect FCPA issues? Consider accounting due diligence to check high-risk or suspicious payments.
Target's independent contractors
Many high profile FCPA enforcement actions have involved payments to foreign officials made through joint venture partners or independent contractors, such as contractors, consultants or agents. Not having actual knowledge that amounts paid to independent contractors were used, in whole or in part, to make corrupt payments to foreign officials will not shield your company from an FCPA violation if the company has consciously avoided knowing that some portion of those payments found their way to foreign officials. Your target's independent contractors may be your sales agents and consultants when the acquisition is consummated, so here are the types of things to consider:
- Does the target use independent agents, sales agents, distributors, resellers or consultants in its business and what contact do they have with foreign officials?
- Does the target check its independent contractors as carefully as your company checks its independent contractors in similar situations? For example, has the target investigated the reputation and track record of the independent contractor? Has the target determined whether the owners, officers, stockholders, members or partners of the independent contractor are foreign officials or related to foreign officials? Has the target enquired about the independent contractor's compliance program and is it as robust as your program for the same set of circumstances?
- With respect to the contracts with independent contractors that deal with foreign officials, is the scope of work in line with the needs of the business and are the payments commensurate with the services provided? Does the target have audit rights to check on suspicious activity and termination rights to cancel the contract when the risk profile exceeds reasonable levels? Do the contracts have anti-bribery representations, warranties, covenants and indemnification provisions?
The extent of due diligence in connection with an acquisition may depend on a number of factors, such as the time available until closing, the purchase price and the extent to which law and custom allow pre-acquisition due diligence. However, having due diligence focused on FCPA compliance as part of your company's due diligence process early in the acquisition process adds value. It affects whether or not the deal goes forward, and if so, the structure of the deal, the purchase price and the payment terms and timing and conditions for payment. Furthermore, it affects the representations, warranties and covenants, and termination and indemnification provisions, of the acquisition agreement. Early warning of real problems, or signs of risks due to lack of transparency, that arise from pre-acquisition due diligence can be addressed in ways not available to an acquirer after closing. For instance, an acquirer can avail itself of the U.S. Department of Justice's Opinion Procedure to understand how to address potential risks, and existing violations, depending on the circumstances, may receive a more receptive audience, as in the case of the Department of Justice's settlement with Armor Holdings, Inc.
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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
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