Dec

8

Exporter and Former Exec At Odds Over Export Charges


Posted by at 7:39 pm on December 8, 2009
Category: BIS

WhistleblowerFor any exporters who may be thinking of ignoring prior export violations hoping that no one will find out, this SEC filing and its tale of a whistleblower might give them an occasion for pause. Law Enforcement Associates just disclosed in an 8-K filed with the SEC that a former executive that the company had dismissed had charged the company with export violations.

The charges by the former executive, Mr. Paul Feldman, are contained in a letter that Feldman filed with the Department of Labor in connection with his dismissal. According to that letter, Law Enforcement Associates appears to have sold items to a company called Safesource for export to the Dominican Republican. Thereafter, Feldman learned that John Carrington, a former owner of Law Enforcement Associates, was a 50 percent owner of Safesource. That was problematic, according to Feldman’s letter, because Carrington was subject to a BIS denial order.

Feldman, another company director and company counsel then contacted the BIS agent that had investigated Mr. Carrington to inform the agent of the exports and its discovery that Carrington was involved in the exports. A week later federal agents raided Safesource.

Three other directors at Law Enforcement Associates, who Feldman alleges were friends of Carrington, became upset about the disclosures to federal authorities. They fired the company’s general counsel who had met with the BIS agent and replaced him with the personal attorney of one of the three Board members. The three directors also sought to have Feldman tell them what he had said to the BIS agent. When Feldman refused, claiming that the three other directors were leaking information about the matter to Carrington, the newly-appointed general counsel, according to Feldman’s letter, called the BIS agent “demanding” that he reveal what Feldman had told the government. Not surprisingly, the BIS agent is said to have told the new general counsel to “tread lightly.” (Practice note to budding export lawyers: this was not a good move by the new general counsel.) Feldman was later fired by a vote of the three directors.

Notwithstanding the ill-advised board-room theatrics — it’s generally a bad idea to try to shut down a company official trying to report export violations — it’s not clear that an export violation by the Company even occurred here. Of course, as regular readers are aware, I do not believe that BIS has the authority to impose general denial orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, BIS’s current governing statute. Even if BIS did have that authority, the portion of the Denial Order that deals with actions by third parties, such as Law Enforcement Associates, would prohibit Law Enforcement Associates from assisting the Denied Person from acquiring any item to be exported from the United States. Here, the items exported were acquired by Safesource, which was not a Denied Person, and not by Carrington, who was.

Law Enforcement Associates disputes the claims made in the Feldman letter and states its belief that the allegations are simply an “attempt by a disgruntled former executive to seek retribution from the Company.”

Stay tuned. I don’t think this show is over yet.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


Ignoring past sins is always a bad idea: In one old case (UCAR), BXA now known as BIS, stated in its press release that its suspicions were aroused when the respondent started submiting license applications when it had not done so before.

But terminating employees who have knowledge of export violations is perhaps the single easiet way to get a government invitation to count the buffalo herd that lives across the road from the Federal Prison Camp at Ft. Leavenworth for a number of years. Many companies just assume that they can just fire an employee who knows that the employer has committed undisclosed violations and that the poor little employee will simply disappear. The fact is that the single greatest source of investigative leads is from disgruntled employees. In no few cases, the government has acted upon the information provided by an unhappy current employee or even a former employee who was terminated for cause.

So, if you are an executive or HR manager at a company that has export problems, and you have a passion for counting buffalo, by all means, go ahead and fire that employee who knows about it. Kansas is a wonderful place.

Comment by Hillbilly on December 9th, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

Wouldn’t it be great if somehow during the course of this, we got something in writing from BIS about whether a Denial Order applies to an employee of a denied company? Or vice versa? Or whether a professor/student of a denied educational institution should be considered restricted as well?

Comment by Chris W. on December 9th, 2009 @ 12:50 pm