Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorFeaturesKickerLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Avoiding FCPA Liability by Tightening Internal Controls

By H. David Kotz and Susan M. Mangiero
September 02, 2014

In early May of this year, Avon Products, Inc. (Avon) announced that it expected to pay $135 million to end long-standing federal probes of alleged violations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) provisions relating to books and records, and internal controls. According to its securities filing, the settlement requires the global beauty product company to pay $68 million to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and $67 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While this amount is larger than an earlier proposed $12 million settlement, it pales in comparison to the estimated $340 million already spent for an internal investigation and legal fees. Additional costs may arise, depending on the findings of a compliance monitor, who will be installed for at least 18 months.

Avon is not alone in paying big money to settle FCPA allegations with various federal regulatory organizations. This is just another example of a company paying out significant amounts to the DOJ and SEC as part of an FCPA settlement that arose out of lack of internal controls. In April 2014, Hewlett-Packard Company agreed to pay $108 million in fines, penalties, and disgorgements in an FCPA settlement regarding its subsidiaries in three countries allegedly making improper payments to government officials to obtain or retain lucrative public contracts. In January 2014, Alcoa agreed to pay $384 million to settle alleged violations of the FCPA relating to its subsidiaries purportedly paying bribes to government officials in Bahrain to maintain a key source of business.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.