IBJNews

Lilly agrees to pay $29.4M to settle SEC bribery charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. agreed to pay $29.4 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges that it paid off government officials to obtain government contracts in Brazil, China, Russia and Poland, the agency said Thursday.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker said it cooperated with the SEC’s investigation, which covered the years 1994 to 2009.

According to a statement released by the SEC, Lilly paid millions of dollars to government officials or to third-party bank accounts associated with government officials. In the case of Russia, Lilly did not curtail the bribery payments from its subsidiary there until five years after the parent company became aware of them, according to the SEC charges, filed Thursday in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Employees at Lilly’s subsidiary in China falsified expense reports to provide spa treatments, jewelry, and other gifts and cash payments to government-employed physicians, according to the SEC.

“Eli Lilly and its subsidiaries possessed a ‘check the box’ mentality when it came to third-party due diligence,” Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices unit, said in a prepared statement. “Companies can’t simply rely on paper-thin assurances by employees, distributors, or customers. They need to look at the surrounding circumstances of any payment to adequately assess whether it could wind up in a government official’s pocket.”

Lilly paid $14 million in disgorged profits and $6.7 million in interest on those profits. The company also paid a fine of $8.7 million to the SEC.

Anne Nobles, Lilly’s chief ethics and compliance officer, said in a prepared statement, “Since ours is a business based on trust, we strive to conduct ourselves in an ethical way that is beyond reproach. We have cooperated with the U.S. government throughout this investigation and have strengthened our internal controls and compliance program globally, including significant investment in our global anti-corruption program."

Lilly first learned of the SEC’s investigation in August 2003. The company did not admit or deny wrongdoing in response to the SEC’s charges. However, it agreed to pay the settlement and have an independent compliance consultant conduct a 60-day review of the company's internal controls and compliance program related to foreign bribery.

Federal investigators have reached similar settlements with Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc. and other health care companies in recent years, according to Associated Press. Industry experts say it's not unusual for foreign sales representatives to give gifts and payments to government officials, though this practice is not permitted by U.S. law.

Lilly shares rose 33 cents Thursday, to $49.24 each, in afternoon trading.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa scandal
    Thanks for posting this vital information.The Eli Lilly company made an astounding $67 BILLION on Zyprexa that they PUSHED on the elderly and underage children (*Viva Zyprexa* Lilly sales rep slogan) with wanton disregard for the side effects *FIVE at FIVE* The Zyprexa antipsychotic drug,whose side effects can include weight gain and diabetes, was sold to Veterans,children in foster care, elderly in nursing homes. *Five at Five* was the Zyprexa sales rep slogan, meaning *5mg dispensed at 5pm would keep patients quiet*. *Tell the truth don't be afraid*-- Daniel Haszard
  • Return on Investment
    Pay millions of dollars for hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts per year? Perhaps next time you can share how much they benefitted from their bribes. Sounds to me like this was a sound investment.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT