No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Arbitration, Corruption and Voluntary Self-Disclosures: What are the Options?

by Wendy Wysong
April 4, 2014
in Compliance
Arbitration, Corruption and Voluntary Self-Disclosures: What are the Options?

with contributing authors Romesh Weeramantry and Montse Ferrer

A company in the midst of arbitration proceedings that discovers potential bribery related to the contract at issue faces inherently irreconcilable conflicts – does it attempt to confine the allegations within the arbitration proceeding or does it disclose them to anti-corruption authorities to stave off potentially astronomical fines? It is critical to understand how the corruption issues will impact the arbitration and vice versa in order to make the appropriate strategic decisions. As often happens, timing is everything … and nothing. The conflicting considerations are these: Arbitration proceedings are ordinarily private and confidential, raising a hope that if a corruption issue is uncovered, it could be handled outside public scrutiny and without regulatory notice as contractual concerns are resolved. Although confidential, the bribery allegation will probably affect the arbitration outcome, as arbitral tribunals are increasingly willing to dismiss the company’s claims under a contract found to have been obtained through bribery. Moreover, there are exceptions to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings that would expose the corruption issues to the public, including regulatory and enforcement authorities. Should the authorities learn of the corruption through such public exposure, the company loses the benefit of penalty mitigation that is possible through timely voluntary disclosure, as explained below. Thus, in weighing its options and timing its disclosures, a company must understand what it can and cannot control. Voluntary Disclosure of Potential Bribery to Anti-Corruption Authorities The U.S. authorities that regulate and enforce anti-corruption laws, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), encourage companies to voluntarily disclose potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by offering potential penalty mitigation. In fact, there have been no FCPA declinations reported by the DOJ or the SEC which did not result from voluntary disclosure. However, disclosure does not guarantee leniency. For one, the disclosure must be timely. Most recently, in announcing a settlement with the Ralph Lauren Corporation, the SEC emphasized that “[w]hen they found a problem, Ralph Lauren Corporation did the right thing by immediately reporting it to the SEC” – “immediately” meaning “within two weeks of discovering the illegal payments and gifts.”[1] And yet, there are risks in premature disclosure, namely unnecessary investigation costs and negative publicity for acts that may not ultimately warrant enforcement action. A study of FCPA cases resolved between 2004 and 2011 found no correlation between the extent of the penalties and companies’ efforts to voluntarily disclose the violations.[2] When Private Becomes Public When the issue of bribery arises in the context of commercial arbitration, a company might consider relying on the generally private and confidential nature of the process. However, three general exceptions exist under which an arbitration may become public:[3] First, if a party applies to a court to set aside an arbitral award or remove an arbitrator, that award may become part of the court’s public record. Although many courts have the power to order that such court proceedings remain confidential, this varies by jurisdiction. Second, procedural rules of arbitral institutions may also provide for disclosure. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, for example, expressly permit disclosure of matters related to the arbitration, should compliance with a request or requirement of any regulatory body or other authority be mandated. Third, arbitrations against States under investment treaties, such as bilateral investment treaties, are generally less confidential than commercial arbitrations. The awards of investment treaty arbitration tribunals are frequently made public. Thus, companies should not take for granted that arbitration proceedings will remain confidential. If a company becomes aware of corruption during an arbitration, the ordinarily private and confidential arbitral process may become public, leading to involuntary disclosure of the offenses to the wider public. In such an instance, penalty mitigation through voluntary disclosure is no longer an option. The Impact of Corruption on Arbitration Proceedings If a company decides that discovery of the bribery allegations by government authorities is inevitable or that the potential benefits of self-disclosure outweigh the risks, a decision to self-disclose may have an impact on the arbitration. To start with, most FCPA resolutions are public, effectively serving as proof or indicia of corporate wrongdoing in the arbitration hearing. A disclosure of bribery committed by one of the parties in the dispute may lead an arbitral tribunal to find that the underlying contract (or investment) is voidable or unenforceable. Allegations of bribery have been addressed in investment treaty arbitral awards, wherein the tribunals have granted corruption defenses to respondents on three grounds: First, arbitral tribunals may decide not to enforce contracts if the treaty, convention or underlying contract relating to the investment in question has a requirement that the investment is made legally, or in accordance with laws. Most recently, in October 2013, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal determined, in Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter due to corruption related to Metal-Tech’s investment in Uzbekistan. Second, violation of international public policy may be invoked, as in World Duty Free Co. v. Republic of Kenya. The ICSID tribunal there stated that “bribery is contrary to the international public policy of most, if not all, States or, to use another formula, to transnational public policy.”[4] This landmark case, decided in 2006, was the first investment tribunal to hold that “claims based on contracts of corruption or on contracts obtained by corruption cannot be upheld.” Finally, an arbitral tribunal may choose not to enforce a contract because of general principles of public international law, including the principle of good faith. In the contractual field, good faith means absence of deceit and artifice during the negotiation and execution of instruments that gave rise to the investment.[5] Decisions to Make Once Bribery Allegations Arise When confronted with the choice of (1) the potential benefits of voluntary disclosure at the risk of jeopardizing the arbitration or (2) proceeding with an arbitration and relying on its confidential and private nature, a company needs to understand the likelihood that bribery will affect the outcome of the arbitration hearing and that the bribery will become public eventually, regardless of the choice it makes. If the company chooses to disclose to the SEC and DOJ, despite the lack of any guarantees of penalty mitigation, such disclosure should be made relatively soon after discovery of the acts surrounding the wrongdoing. This voluntary disclosure and any subsequent resolution with U.S. authorities, however, may provide evidentiary support for a respondent’s defense in an arbitration proceeding, leading to an unenforceable contract. If the company chooses not to disclose to the U.S. regulators, any facts that could be interpreted as corrupt behavior on behalf of the company should be treated with great care in the arbitration proceedings. Such facts could be used by the arbitral tribunal as the basis for an adverse finding against the company. Moreover, should any of these facts ultimately surface during the arbitral proceedings when the arbitration becomes public, the U.S. regulators may impose a greater fine on the company than if the company had voluntarily disclosed these facts. In any of these scenarios, the risks of not disclosing to the U.S. regulators are high.


[1]  SEC Press Release, April 22, 2013.
[2]  Stephen J. Choi & Kevin E. Davis, Foreign Affairs & Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, NYU Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-15 (2012).
[3] See Simon Greenberg, Christopher Kee & Romesh Weeramantry, International Commercial Arbitration: An Asia Pacific Perspective 371-78 (2011).
[4] World Duty Free Co. v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award ¶ 157 (Oct. 4, 2006), 46 I.L.M. 339 (2007).
[5] Inceysa Vallisoletana, S.L. v. Republic of El Sal., ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26,  Award  ¶ 231 (Aug. 2, 2006).

Previous Post

Aligning Stakeholder Expectations with Function Capabilities Helps Drive Internal Audit to Deliver Significant Value, According to PwC

Next Post

Something is Rotten in Denmark or Is It the Banking Industry?

Wendy Wysong

Wendy Wysong

Wendy L. Wysong is a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. She served previously as a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, offering clients advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and OFAC Economic Sanctions. She was appointed by the State Department as the ITAR Special Compliance Official for Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) in 2010. Wendy combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 16 years with her regulatory background as the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce. She managed its enforcement program and was involved in the development and implementation of foreign policy through export controls across the administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security, as well as the intelligence community. Wendy received her law degree in 1984 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Related Posts

Fox_DOJ Speeches_f

Analysis of Recent DOJ Statements

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

DOJ leaders provide insight into agency's plans. Analysis of Recent Statements DOJ Shaping the Future of Corporate Criminal Enforcement What’s...

Fox_2023 ECCP Update_f

2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

Keeping up with 2023 changes to DOJ guidelines. Additions, Deletions & Changes From 2020 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs...

encompass update

Encompass Launches pKYC Maturity Model

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

KYC automation platform Encompass has unveiled a new perpetual Know Your Customer (pKYC) maturity model designed to help banks improve...

consilio onna partnership

Consilio, Onna Seek to Streamline eDiscovery for Cloud Apps

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

Legal technology provider Consilio has launched a new platform, Sightline Collect, powered by data management supplier Onna. The platform is...

Next Post
Something is Rotten in Denmark or Is It the Banking Industry?

Something is Rotten in Denmark or Is It the Banking Industry?

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT