Ccr Leniency Agreement

Gepostet von am Sep 14, 2021 in Allgemein | Keine Kommentare

Despite the inconsistencies, compliance obligations imposed by leniency agreements on some of the country`s largest conglomerates have contributed to the development and rapid growth of compliance in Brazil. As a result of the international benchmark, MPF and the UGC began to include supervisory rules in leniency agreements to ensure the integrity of the cooperating companies. Bilfinger`s leniency agreement with the CGU and the AGU provides for an amount of approximately 9.5 million reais, both for the deposit and for damages. In addition, the 575 million reais set out in UTC Engenharia`s leniency agreement includes both fines, severance pay and damages. On 10 March 27, 2020, MPF requested an interim measure against J&F to prevent the company from relocating companies, relocating its registered office abroad and listing the company abroad. The purpose of the MPF application is to ensure that J&F complies with the terms of the leniency agreement. According to MPF, J&F did not fulfil its obligations with regard to the implementation of social projects and the reports relating to the internal investigations carried out on the companies in J&F`s business group. The case has not yet been definitively decided. The case, which concerns UTC Engenharia and Andrade Gutierrez among others, was brought to the STF in May 2020 to decide on the possibility for the TCU to declare the exclusion of companies that have signed leniency agreements. The agreement signed by CGU and AGU with Camargo Correa in July 2019 provides for a report on a plan for the implementation of a compliance program within the framework of the requirements of Federal Decision No. 8.420/2015 and a period of two years for obtaining ISO 37001 certification in the company.

In the case of SBM Offshore, Petrobras was the only injured company and therefore the only one to be compensated. SBM Offshore entered into a leniency agreement with CGU in July 2018 and agreed to pay 1.2 billion reais, including fines under improbity law, damages. The agreement reached by SBM Offshore with MPF in August 2018 set the total amount of 1.4 billion reais, including a fine after the right of improbity, damages and bottling. The difference between the two agreements concerns only the improbity law fine. In practice, the MPF agreement only resulted in an additional 200 million reais for Petrobras if we take into account the 1.2 billion reais already agreed with the GCU. MPF and CGU and AGU showed greater cooperation in the MullenLowe/FCB Brasil and Technip Brasil cases. In both cases, the companies negotiated with MPF and CGU and AGU, who agreed to establish the same amount in their leniency agreements. In May 2020, the Federal Court of the Fourth Region (TRF4) ruled that an appeal brought by AGU under the Immobility Act must be dismissed if the defendant has entered into a leniency agreement with agu. This specific case concerns UTC Engenharia, in which TRF4 found that the agreement already set an amount for fines and damages, so that UTC Engenharia should not be the subject of an action for the same facts. In addition to the GCU, the AGU and the MPF, the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU) has a constitutional obligation to claim damages from the Federal Treasury. In order to guarantee damages, the TCU may freeze the assets of companies involved in misconduct. In 2017, as part of Operation Car Wash, the TCU froze the assets of companies such as Odebrecht, UTC Engenharia, Queiroz Galvão, Galvão Engenharia, Iesa, Engevix and Promon, regardless of the leniency agreements signed by some of these companies with the MPF (Odebrecht and UTC Engenharia).