News 25 Sep. 2020
Partners Borzu Sabahi and Timi Balogun to Teach Investment Arbitration Masterclass in Fall 2020
News 18 Aug. 2020
Curtis Welcomes New Corporate Partner Paul Bugingo in Dubai
News 26 Feb. 2020
Curtis Secures Comprehensive Victory for the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Committee of Roads
News 24 Jan. 2020
Curtis defeats $400 million investment treaty claim brought against India
Client Alert 19 Oct. 2020
International Insight: The 2020 Updates to the LCIA Arbitration Rules
News 08 Oct. 2020
Curtis gains recognition in the Legal 500 UK 2021 for Private Funds and Public International Law
News 02 Oct. 2020
Partner Antonio Prida participates in committee proposing changes to General Law of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Mexico
Event 02 Sep. 2020
Partner Gabriela Alvarez Avila to speak in webinar on Specialized Topics of International Arbitration
Event 24 Sep. 2020
Marco Blanco, Co-Head of the Tax Group, teaches international taxation virtual course for the Paris Sorbonne University in Dubai LLM program
Event 08 Oct. 2020
Partner Charles Howland speaks at Center for Strategic Policy Innovation’s Clean Growth Incubator Rollout
Event 30 Sep. 2020
Partner Simon Batifort Speaks at the 10th Prague Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference
Client Alert 04 Oct. 2020
U.S. Insight: Update on Virtual Notarization (New York Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: October 4, 2020)
U.S. Insight: Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: October 4, 2020)
Client Alert 04 Sep. 2020
The alert is available for download with footnotes here.
On August 14, 2020, for the first time in six years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act advisory opinion, formally called an “Opinion Procedure Release,” which concluded that payments made to a subsidiary of a foreign government instrumentality did not warrant FCPA enforcement.
Overview of FCPA
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was enacted in 1977 to combat international corruption in two ways: (1) the anti-bribery provisions, which prohibit the bribing of foreign government officials, and (2) the accounting provisions, which impose certain record keeping and internal control requirements. Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions prohibit the payment of money or anything of value to a foreign official in his or her official capacity to secure any improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business.
Under the FCPA, a foreign official is defined as “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.”
The FCPA does not define a government “instrumentality.” The term has been the subject of judicial interpretation. The July 2020 edition of the FCPA Resource Guide discusses the Eleventh Circuit’s test in United States v. Esquenazi for determining whether an entity is a government “instrumentality,” and notes that the court there defined it as “an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that performs a function the controlling government treats as its own.” The test is fact-intensive, and takes into account factors that include the foreign government’s formal designation of the entity, and whether the government has a majority interest in the entity.
The FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions apply to issuers of U.S.-listed securities (“issuers”), U.S.-based companies (“domestic concerns”), and certain foreign persons and businesses while acting in the territory of the U.S. (“territorial jurisdiction”).
Notably, the FCPA Resource Guide expressly states that “[t]he FCPA prohibits payments to foreign officials, not to foreign governments.”
The August 14, 2020 DOJ Advisory Opinion
In 2017, an investment advisory firm (the “Firm”) headquartered in the U.S. sought to purchase a portfolio of shares from a foreign subsidiary of a foreign investment bank (the “Bank”). The Bank is indirectly majority-owned by a foreign government, and most of the shares in the portfolio were owned by that government. In order to purchase the shares, the Firm sought and retained the services of a second foreign subsidiary of the Bank. When the Firm completed the purchase of the shares from the first subsidiary, the second subsidiary sought payment from the Firm for the services it had rendered.
Before making any payment, the Firm requested an advisory opinion from the DOJ as to the lawfulness of such a payment under the FCPA. The DOJ concluded, on the facts provided, that the payment would not violate the FCPA.
Noting that “[t]he FCPA does not prohibit payments to foreign governments or foreign government instrumentalities,” the DOJ cited three essential facts in support of its opinion that the payment did not warrant enforcement action:
The DOJ noted that the opinion “has no binding application to any party other than” the requesting company. Nevertheless, the opinion is helpful in identifying the factors the DOJ considers relevant under the FCPA when U.S. domestic concerns and issuers engage in commercial activities with affiliates of instrumentalities of foreign governments. This information should be helpful not only to U.S. domestic concerns and issuers, but also to instrumentalities of foreign governments that may have to convince U.S. domestic concerns and issuers that, by agreeing to certain commercial terms, they are not running afoul of the FCPA.
Commercial Disputes - Litigation
U.S. National Security
Daniel R. Lenihan
+1 212 696 6000
+1 202 452 7373
Article 19 Oct. 2020
Partner Michael S. Schwartz Publishes Article in International Journal on Resiliency in Family Governance
Client Alert 08 Oct. 2020
Global Digital Taxes and Minimum Taxes are Upon Us