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

Collateral Civil Action Lawsuits for Corrupt Wrongdoing: New to Australia

by Wendy Wysong
March 13, 2015
in Compliance
Collateral Civil Action Lawsuits for Corrupt Wrongdoing: New to Australia

With contributing authors Jerrem Ng and Montse Ferrer

When US listed companies discover circumstances of alleged bribery, their consequent internal investigations and disclosures to relevant enforcement agencies are very often only half the battle. United States companies have increasingly been faced with follow-on civil lawsuits brought by aggrieved stakeholders who claim that the corrupt wrongdoing, or the failure to disclose it, as actionable offenses. This is not just a US problem; the first class-action law suit has been filed in Australia against a company for its alleged failure to disclose corrupt wrongdoing. The high cost of collateral civil actions and the resulting reputational damage are two good reasons companies in Asia should consider carefully how to manage corrupt wrongdoing internally and externally.

Collateral Civil Actions in the US

Shareholder lawsuits related to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) usually take one of two forms in the United States: derivative suits or securities fraud class actions. A derivative action is brought by shareholders on behalf of the company to remedy harm purportedly done to the company by directors and officers who violated their fiduciary duties. A securities fraud claim, often filed as a class action, is brought by shareholders of the corporation alleging that the company failed to disclose (or disclosed in a misleading manner) material information relating to the company’s FCPA compliance efforts. These law suits are usually triggered by the announcement of a government FCPA investigation or by the notification of substantial penalties being paid by the company following a settlement.

Companies that have been the target of such lawsuits in recent years include Baker Hughes Inc, Hewlett-Packard Company, Hercules Offshore, Parker Drilling Company, Pride International, SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Siemens AG, Tidewater Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Avon Products, PetroChina and most recently, in December 2014, Petroleo Brasileiro. The law suits against Avon Products and PetroChina targeted companies operating in China. While most of these civil actions have been dismissed, a number of them have settled, and the costs involved in defending the suits have been considerable, regardless of the result.

Class actions in Australia

The number of class actions in Australia has increased over the last few years, with Australia second only to the United States. Companies face an increased risk of class actions in Australia because it is relatively easy to form a class, Australia has plaintiff friendly procedures, and third party litigation funders are on the rise. Unlike other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which require a plaintiff to show that common issues within the class predominate over individual issues, Australian plaintiffs are required only to show that there is at least one substantial common issue of law or fact between members of the class.

Australian regulators have publicly encouraged class actions as they purportedly assist in holding companies accountable. In this respect, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) has willingly shared information obtained in the course of its investigations with class action plaintiffs. For example, in a class action against Bell Potter Securities, who was accused of failing to disclose a conflict of interest when encouraging clients to invest in overvalued shares, plaintiffs were able to obtain information through ASIC’s voluntary provisions of documents. Section 25(1) of the ASIC Act allows ASIC to provide copies of a record of examination and related books if ASIC is satisfied that the lawyer’s client is carrying on or contemplating a proceeding related to the examination.

While historically used only in product liability claims, class actions have increasingly been used to allege that listed companies have breached their continuous disclosure obligations and/or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, such as failing to disclose conduct involving bribery or corruption. Sections 674(1) and (2) of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities Exchange (“ASX”) listing rules require an ASX listed entity to immediately disclose to the ASX any information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s securities, once the entity is or becomes aware of that information. However, one of the exceptions to disclosure under the ASX listing rules is that the information (i) comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure, (ii) is confidential, and (iii) is information that a reasonable person would not expect to be disclosed. Further, under section 1041H of the Corporations Act, a corporation is prohibited from engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive conduct or likely to mislead or deceive.

There has only been one reported class action in Australia filed in relation to alleged bribery but that is primarily because enforcement agencies in Australia had not prosecuted a company for bribery before 2011. Further, there have been no derivative action cases brought by shareholders on behalf of the company against directors and officers who may have violated their fiduciary and statutory duties by approving or permitting bribery or corruption.

First Corruption-related Class Action in Australia

In 2011, Leighton Holdings Limited (a company listed on the ASX) voluntarily reported to the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) a possible breach of its Code of Ethics relating to payments that may have been made by a subsidiary in connection with an infrastructure project in Iraq, which if substantiated, may contravene Australian laws.

Leighton Holdings did not announce that it was co-operating with the AFP until February 2012 as the AFP was conducting an investigation into these allegations and informed Leighton Holdings that the matter should be treated in the strictest confidence. In July 2012, Leighton Holdings announced that its internal review of the Iraq projects undertaken by its subsidiary had identified instances of failures to meet governance standards, subsequently dismissing a senior manager. In early October 2013, several reports were made in the Australian press raising allegations of bribery and corruption associated with the various infrastructure projects undertaken by Leighton subsidiary companies and that the directors of Leighton Holdings failed to exercise their duties.

Leighton Holdings was served with a class action in October 2013 by a shareholder on behalf of a class of shareholders alleging that the company breached its continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act and the ASX Listing rules by failing to reveal allegations of bribery and corruption when they were known. The class action also raised allegations that Leighton Holdings engaged in conduct which was misleading and deceptive in filing capital raising documents in April 2011 and making the announcements in February 2012 about the AFP investigation without disclosing any information about the alleged bribes.

Leighton Holdings has said in its defence that at the relevant times referred to in the class action, it did not have information regarding the alleged bribes and, had it known, disclosure was not required because the information comprised matters of supposition or was insufficiently definite, was confidential, and a reasonable person would not have expected that information to be disclosed prior to the relevant times. The company has also denied that such information would have had a material effect on the price or value of shares in the company.

Given the increasing crackdown and enforcement by regulators on bribery and corruption (and the OECD’s recent criticism of lack of anti-bribery and corruption enforcement by Australian regulators) and the increasing appetite of litigation funders to fund class actions, it can expected that more of these types of class actions will be brought when allegations of bribery and corruption become public. Generally, in Australia, there has been an increase in continuous disclosure class actions and the extension to bribery and corruption matters is a natural extension to that trend.

Takeaways

The rise in class actions in an environment where regulators are increasingly targeting corrupt wrongdoing should concern companies operating in Asia Pacific even if civil law suits have only had minimal impact on companies in this region. Companies should consider disclosure to the government and shareholders as a tool to be mastered, rather than a defense mechanism.

Companies should implement strategies as part of their compliance plans which involve engaging regulators as early as possible and informing them of any intention to make public announcements of suspected wrongdoing. Further, companies should consider minimizing class action risk by taking one or more of the following steps: disclosing broad details concerning the alleged wrongdoing, indicating that the allegations are being investigated but not yet substantiated, and informing shareholders that the company will provide additional information once the investigation has been finalised.

Once an internal investigation is finalized, companies should consider carefully what disclosure can be made to shareholders, keeping in mind whether any privilege attaching to internal investigation documents should be waived, what facts disclosed to the public can be used against the company by future law suits, and how best to present the company’s compliance efforts.


Previous Post

Is Trust an Effective Control?

Next Post

You may know the latest PCI DSS 3.0 standards, but do all your staff know?

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
You may know the latest PCI DSS 3.0 standards, but do all your staff know?

You may know the latest PCI DSS 3.0 standards, but do all your staff know?

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