Oe company. No enforcement action was taken against the suc- cessor, but the predecessor company pleaded guilty to one count of violating the FCPA and agreed to pay a $2 million The FCPA: fine.'” Later, four executives from the predecessor company Anti-Bribery Provisions were convicted of FCPA violations, three of whom received terms of imprisonment.” On occasion, when an enforcement action has been taken against a predecessor company, the succes- sor seeks assurances that it will not be subject to a future enforcement action. In one such case, a Dutch predeces- sor resolved FCPA charges with DOJ through a deferred prosecution agreement.’ While both the predecessor and successor signed the agreement, which included a commitment to ongoing cooperation and an improved compliance program, only the predecessor company was charged; in signing the agreement, the successor company gained the certainty of conditional release from criminal liability, even though it was not being pursued for FCPA violations.!”> In another case, after a Connecticut-based company uncovered FCPA violations by a California company it sought to acquire, both companies voluntarily disclosed the conduct to DOJ and SEC.' The prede- cessor company resolved its criminal liability through a non-prosecution agreement with DOJ that included an $800,000 monetary penalty and also settled with SEC, paying a total of $1.1 million in disgorgement, pre-judg- ment interest, and civil penalties. The successor company proceeded with the acquisition and separately entered into a non-prosecution agreement with DOJ in which it agreed, among other things, to ensure full performance of the predecessor company’s non-prosecution agreement. This agreement provided certainty to the successor con- cerning its FCPA liability. '”” Importantly, a successor company’s voluntary disclo- sure, appropriate due diligence, and implementation of an effective compliance program may also decrease the likeli- hood of an enforcement ac