Just as the FCPA enforcement field is covered with actions centering around mergers and acquisitions, there are multiple actions involving joint ventures (JVs). JVs continue to plague many US companies up to this day. In many ways, JVs present more difficult issues for the compliance practitioner than mergers and acquisitions because of the control issues present in JVs with foreign governments or state owned enterprises ownership.
In an article in the Virginia Law & Business Review, entitled “Traversing the Minefield: Joint Ventures and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” Daniel Grimm explained that JVs can provide a variety of benefits to a company desiring to enter an international market. Some of the benefits can include; satisfying a local content or partner requirement, a method of international expansion under “which outside investors benefit from the knowledge of local firms while retaining “some operational and strategic control” over the enterprise”; all with a lower overall cost for both resources and integration than required through a traditional corporate merger. Yet these same benefits can also bring greater FCPA risks.
Mike Volkov in an article entitled, “Digging Down on Joint Ventures and FCPA Compliance” noted that when you create a JV, there are a number of difficult issues to analyze. Initially, is the requirement of adequate due diligence. This is more difficult than in a traditional merger. Next is the set of governance issues surrounding control of the JV. If your JV partner is a state-owned enterprise, the issues become even more complex. The interactions between the company and the state-owned enterprise within the joint venture itself should be regulated so that they are not perceived as intended to improperly influence the state owned enterprise, “either directly or in other areas of interaction.” Even if JV involves a private, as opposed to state-owned partner, the compliance issue then becomes the controlling the actions of the JV sales people, JV staff responsible for regulatory interactions, and JV-retained third party agents and distributors.
A new JV creates a new set of risks for the company subject to the FCPA. In the JV context, the company has, by definition, less control. As a result, these issues need to be addressed in the formation of the JV. The issue becomes even more difficult when the company entering the JV has less than 50 percent control. Grimm noted that “An issuer with a minority stake in another entity is required to “proceed in good faith to use its influence, to the extent reasonable under the issuer’s circumstances,” to cause the entity to comply with the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. Relevant circumstances include “the relative degree of the issuer’s ownership” and “the laws and practices governing the business operations of the country” in which the entity is located.”
As early as 2002, in the SEC FCPA enforcement action involving BellSouth, which owned only 49% of a JV in in Telefonia Celular de Nicaragua, S.A. (“Telefonia”), a Nicaraguan corporation that relinquished operational control to an indirect, wholly-owned BellSouth subsidiary. Relying on the FCPA’s good faith influence requirement for an issuer holding a minority stake in another entity, the SEC alleged that BellSouth “held less than 50 percent of the voting power of Telefonia, but through its operational control, had the ability to cause Telefonia to comply with the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions.”
There are multiple types of FCPA liability to a parent for the actions of a JV in which it is a partner. These can include directly liability such as with Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR in the TSJK JV involved in bribery and corruption in Nigeria. Halliburton paid a total FCPA penalty of $579MM to the US and $25MM to the Nigerian government of the actions of its subsidiary, KBR.
In addition to the traditional direct liability, JVs can be a source of vicarious liability. Grimm noted that “A business entity may, depending on the circumstances, be held vicariously liable for FCPA violations committed by a joint venture, a joint venture partner, or an agent acting on behalf of a joint venture. Vicarious liability traditionally applies in situations where a business entity authorized, directed, or controlled acts that violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions.” It could also violate the accounting provisions around keeping accurate books and records and effective internal controls. This was the situation involving 2016 enforcement action involving Anheuser-Busch InBev, in India, where the company paid $6 million to settle charges that it violated the FCPA and impeded a whistleblower who reported the misconduct.
Mike Volkov identified other risks that a company must seek to avoid. These include the transfer of things of value to a state-owned enterprise for benefits of someone outside the joint venture. A company must avoid payments for which there is no legitimate business purpose to the state-owned enterprise in the joint venture itself; as they will be deemed to be illegal benefits to the state-owned enterprise outside the joint venture. In this case, the joint venture becomes a vehicle by which to disguise bribery payments for benefits to those outside the joint venture.
Any company which operates a JV with foreign governments or state-owned enterprises holds the same FCPA risk as the JV partner itself; the risks become apparent relating to the operation of the joint venture itself. This means that if the joint venture interacts with foreign government officials or employee of a state-owned enterprise and leverages its state-owned enterprise relationships for an improper benefit either contracts and/or regulatory licenses, permits or customs approvals; it could well be subject to FCPA scrutiny. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to regulate a JVs interactions with foreign government officials, particularly when your partner is a state-owned enterprise, or where your company is relying on the local company for its local contacts and expertise for business development and/or regulatory knowledge and experience in the country where the JV operates.
The bottom line is JVs present a unique set of FCPA risks for the compliance practitioner. You will need to incorporate risk manage techniques in all phases of the JV relations; pre-formation, the JV agreement and in operations after the JV has begun operation. The compliance obligations and compliance process are ongoing.
Three Key Takeaways
- Joint Ventures present unique FCPA risks.
- Control is only one issue a compliance practitioner must consider in evaluating joint venture risks.
- Companies continue to have significant FCPA risks from joint ventures.
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Michael Volkov and The Volkov Law Group. The Volkov Law Group is a premier law firm specializing in corporate ethics and compliance, internal investigations and white collar defense. For more information and to discuss practical solutions to compliance and enforcement issues, email Michael Volkov at email@example.com or check out www.volkovlaw.com.