News 24 Jun. 2021
Curtis successfully defends foreign states' procedural privileges in the UK Supreme Court
News 23 Jun. 2021
Ibrahim Elsadig joins Curtis as Partner in Dubai
News 09 Aug. 2021
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle enters into association with Chevalier Law in Singapore.
Event 23 Apr. 2021
Partner Borzu Sabahi to speak on Damages, Enforcement and Annulment of Arbitral Awards at Executive Training Program hosted by the Government of India and the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
Event 07 Sep. 2021
Simon Batifort and Andrew Larkin Speak at the European Society of International Law’s 2021 Annual Conference
Client Alert 06 Sep. 2021
Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership in 2021 – Luxembourg Perspectives – Alert 5 of the Series
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on Panel within Framework of Colombia's 4th National Arbitration Competition
News 30 Aug. 2021
Curtis Returns to SCOTUS in Historic Sequel on the Rights of Citizens in Puerto Rico
News 16 Aug. 2021
Curtis Establishes Presence in Saudi Arabia
News 26 Jul. 2021
Curtis' Private Client Group and Attorneys Recognized in the 2021 Chambers High-Net-Worth Guide.
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
U.S. Insight: Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021)
U.S. Insight: Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021)
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
News 02 Sep. 2021
New International Trade Partner Joins Curtis in Brussels