Your Questions: Answered - Written by on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:24 - 0 Comments

Ask Barry & Richard: Indemnities worth seeking from ‘Associated Persons’

Print Friendly

Question

I’m a regular reader of thebriberyact.com website and find it an invaluable resource for all things in this field – keep up the excellent work!  I have a question for you that I haven’t seen covered on the site or elsewhere and wonder what your thoughts are on it.  I hope this is the best way of posing it – there doesn’t seem to be a facility on the site itself.

We’re in the process of putting wording in our contracts to allow us to terminate a relationship with a service provider if we know or suspect they are committing bribery.

One of them is seeking to amend the wording to ensure that termination is our sole remedy and their sole liability.

Leaving aside the obvious challenges around proof and causation, it got me thinking about whether it would be possible to sue a service provider whose actions result in us being fined.  If it is, then agreeing to an amendment like this may be inadvisable.

Clearly in such a situation our adequate procedures defence will have failed, but that alone ought not to preclude an attempt to recover an amount equal to the penalty / fine we suffer.  Of course there’s the fact that if our liability is been criminal we wouldn’t be able to make a recovery from third parties due to the ex turpi causa rule (as Safeway found out when it tried to recover OFT penalties from its former directors). However the position would presumably be different if our loss was occasioned via a civil penalty / CRO?

Answer

You are correct that the answer could be different.  In addition to the position in relation to a civil penalty it is also worth keeping in mind that there are numerous other considerations.

For example, costs dealing with a problem often equal or exceed the cost of any penalty.  Citing termination as a sole remedy for proven (and suspected) bribery will limit the options of the ‘victim’ company.

In practice we frequently see provisions which incorporate an indemnity for losses suffered and in order to avoid the problem of ex turpi causa, as you identified, we add a provision making it plain that such provisions do not extend to attempt to cover indemnification of losses which would be void for public policy reasons.

However, there are numerous other costs and losses which a business would suffer and if possible it would be preferable to avoid giving up any claim to them.

Share Button


Comments are closed.

Brought to you by...

Barry Vitou &
Richard Kovalevsky Q.C.

The views expressed on this website are those of Barry Vitou & Richard Kovalevsky QC and/or our guest authors from time to time. Please see our terms of use

in association with...

Our Tweets

Friday, August 11, 2017 20:40

Former DoJ chief Sally Yates on being fired by Trump https://t.co/lmCjHKXJBj via @FT

Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:18

Opinion: As debate shifts from future of SFO to future of Theresa May we say: At last, fund the SFO properly. https://t.co/PwuCqHPkTq

Friday, June 9, 2017 12:21

SFO cat uses up another life! SFO set to stay after Theresa May's authority is seriously undermined.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:44

Opinion: Conservatives must answer two basic questions about the plan to merge the SFO into the NCA https://t.co/OREkjacH2H

Thursday, May 18, 2017 21:07

Announcement of SFO merger into the NCA must be followed with detailed plans and assurances to SFO plans now https://t.co/Sbq5zt9yWP