Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/215206143/SEC-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Facilitating-Payments
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 00:25:42
Document Index: 30661570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 78']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 1 of 41UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ____________________________________ ) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 4:12-cv-00563 ) v. ) Hon. Keith P. Ellison ) MARK A. JACKSON and ) JAMES J. RUEHLEN, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
SEC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INAPPLICABILITY OF FACILITATING PAYMENT EXCEPTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 2 of 41
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 1 Nature and Stage of the Proceeding ....................................................................................... 3 Issues to Be Ruled Upon By the Court .................................................................................. 3
IV. STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE NIGERIAN LAW .......................................................... 3 A. i. ii. iii. B. V. Nigerian Law Regarding TIPs ........................................................................................ 3 Discretion Under CEMA and C&E Notice No. 14 .................................................... 3 The TI Code’s Limitation on Serial TIPs and TIP Extensions .................................. 6 Other TIP Procedures ................................................................................................. 9 Nigerian Law Prohibiting the Use of False Paperwork .................................................. 9
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ........................................................................ 10 A. B. C. Background .................................................................................................................. 11 Noble’s Rigs in Nigeria ................................................................................................ 12 Noble Obtained TIPs and TIP Extensions Using False Paperwork and Payments to
Government Officials.............................................................................................................. 14 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Drilling Rig Noble Don Walker............................................................................... 14 Drilling Rig Noble Ed Noble ................................................................................... 15 Drilling Rig Noble Roy Butler ................................................................................. 16 Drilling Rig Noble Lloyd Noble .............................................................................. 17 Drilling Rig Noble Percy Johns ............................................................................... 19 Drilling Rig Noble Tommy Craighead .................................................................... 21 Drilling Rig Noble Homer Ferrington ..................................................................... 23
VI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ........................................................................... 24
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 3 of 41
VII. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 25 A. Noble’s payments to obtain discretionary exemptions from import duties are not
permissible facilitating payments under the FCPA. ............................................................... 25 1. Nigerian law provides that the grant of TIPs and TIP extensions is a discretionary act. ............................................................................................................................ 28 2. Each of the payments at issue in this case was authorized to obtain discretionary import duty exemptions. .......................................................................................... 29 B. Noble’s payments to obtain illegal exemptions from import taxes are not permissible
facilitating payments under the FCPA. ................................................................................... 29 1. 2. C. Noble’s TIPs based on false paperwork were illegal. .............................................. 30 Noble’s second, third, and fourth TIP extensions were illegal. ............................... 31 The purported existence of rampant bribery and unlawful conduct in Nigeria does not
make Noble’s payments for discretionary or illegal exemptions permissible. ....................... 33 VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 36
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 4 of 41
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ....................................................................................... 24 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).................................... 24 United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Kay I”) .............................................. passim United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (2007) (“Kay II) .................................................................. 35 Statutes Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1] ............. 1, 3, 26, 36 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................................... 24
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 5 of 41
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The SEC seeks partial summary judgment on the limited question of whether the
payments to Nigerian government officials that Defendants authorized to secure Temporary Import Permits (“TIPs”) and TIP extensions fit within the narrow “facilitating payment” exception under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). The SEC alleges that the Defendants violated the anti-bribery and accounting provisions of the FCPA by authorizing the payment of bribes on behalf of their employer – Noble Corporation – to Nigerian government officials to influence or induce these officials to grant Noble TIPs and TIP extensions. These TIPs allowed Noble to avoid paying import duties on oil drilling rigs that it operated in Nigeria. Because TIPs provide only a temporary exemption from import duties, at the expiration of a TIP and its allowable extension, Noble had an obligation to either pay the import duties due on the drilling rigs or export them out of Nigeria. Using bribes and other means, Defendants secured serial TIPs and TIP extensions, which enabled Noble to keep its rigs operating continuously in Nigeria well beyond the time period allowed under Nigerian law. The FCPA broadly prohibits corrupt payments to foreign officials to influence any official act or induce any official to violate a lawful duty. See 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a). But there is a narrow exception to that broad prohibition: Under subsection 78dd-1(b), the FCPA permits certain “facilitating or expediting payments” made “to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action.” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(b). This so-called facilitating payment exception does not apply in this case, as a matter of law.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 6 of 41
Summary judgment is appropriate for three reasons: First, the law of decision is clear and binding. This Court previously held that payments to government officials for discretionary or illegal TIPs and TIP extensions are not permissible facilitating payments. Second, the applicable foreign law is clear and undisputed. As demonstrated in the SEC’s Motion for a Determination of Foreign Law Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 (“Rule 44.1 Motion”), the relevant provisions of Nigerian law are clear and undisputed. First, under Nigerian law, customs officials have discretion to grant or deny TIPs and TIP extensions; these TIPs and extensions are a discretionary exemption from import duties, not an entitlement. Second, Nigerian law prohibits both the use of false paperwork to secure TIPs and payments to government officials to secure TIPs and TIP extensions. Third, Nigerian law provides that an initial TIP may not exceed twelve months and may only be extended once for up to an additional twelve months. These provisions of Nigerian law are clear and undisputed, and must be determined as a matter of law by the Court. Third, the material facts are not in genuine dispute. The payments to Nigerian government officials at issue in this case were themselves illegal in Nigeria and were authorized to obtain import duty exemptions that were (i) discretionary and (ii) in certain cases, illegal under Nigerian law. Specifically, each of the payments to Nigerian government officials at issue was authorized in connection with obtaining a valuable and discretionary government benefit – i.e., import duty exemptions for Noble’s rigs. Certain of the payments were made to obtain TIPs on false pretenses, in violation of Nigerian law. And, some of the payments were authorized to obtain TIP extensions that exceeded the number and duration of TIP extensions allowed under Nigerian law.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 7 of 41
For these reasons, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for partial summary judgment that the facilitating payment exception is not applicable in this case. II. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING This action arises from violations of the anti-bribery and accounting provisions of the FCPA by the Defendants. The SEC alleges that Defendants, among other things, authorized payment of the bribes and as a consequence violated the anti-bribery provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §78dd-1]. Fact and expert discovery is now complete and trial is currently scheduled to commence on July 9, 2014. III. ISSUES TO BE RULED UPON BY THE COURT The issue to be ruled upon by the Court is whether the FCPA’s facilitating payment exception, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(b), applies to payments to Nigerian government officials authorized in connection with discretionary and/or illegal grants of TIPs and TIP extensions. IV. STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE NIGERIAN LAW As set forth in the SEC’s Rule 44.1 Motion, the relevant provisions of Nigerian law are clear and undisputed. Under Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the content of foreign law is a matter for the Court, and the Court’s determination of foreign law must be treated as a ruling on a question of law for purposes of summary judgment and trial. The Court’s determination of foreign law is therefore a legal predicate to this motion. The key provisions of Nigerian law are reproduced here for the Court’s convenience, and these paragraphs are cited in the argument section of this motion as “NL¶__.” A. Nigerian Law Regarding TIPs
Discretion Under CEMA and C&E Notice No. 14
The Customs and Excise Management Act No. 55 of 1958 (“CEMA”) of the
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 8 of 41
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria governs the administration and provision of TIPs in Nigeria. (See Aff. of Kofo Olugbesan (“Olugbesan Aff.”) (attached as Exhibit A to the SEC’s Rule 44.1 Motion, filed contemporaneously herewith) ¶ 9.) 2. Section 37(1) of CEMA provides that “no imported goods shall be delivered or
removed on importation until the importer has paid to the proper officer any duty chargeable thereon, and that duty shall, in the case of goods of which entry is made, be paid on delivery of the entry to the proper officer.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) 3. Although goods imported into Nigeria are subject to payment of duty at the time
of entry, CEMA provides that goods temporarily imported into Nigeria may be relieved from payment of such duty at the discretion of the Board of Customs and Excise (“the Board”). (Id. at ¶ 11.) Section 42 of CEMA states that “where the Board is satisfied that goods are imported only temporarily and are intended to be re-exported …, it may permit the goods to be delivered on importation …, subject to conditions as it sees fit to impose, without payment of duty.” (Id.) The use of the word “may” gives the Board discretion to grant or deny TIPs. (Id.) 4. CEMA empowers the President, Minister, and Board to make implementing
regulations. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Regulations issued by the Board are called Customs and Excise Notices (“C&E Notices”) and are publicly available through publication in an official government gazette called the “Federation of Nigeria Official Gazette.” (Id.) 5. C&E Notice No. 14 of 1959 concerns the temporary importation of goods into
Nigeria without the payment of duty. (Id. at ¶ 15.) This Notice states that the Board is “prepared to remit or repay Customs duty on specified goods where they are satisfied that … there are special reasons why, with a view to promoting the interests of trade, duty should not be charged….” (Id.) Specifically with respect to goods such as oil drilling rigs, Section 27 in Part
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 9 of 41
III.A. of C&E Notice No. 14 states: 27. Special Provisions.—Prior written application must be made to the Board of Customs and Excise, Lagos, for permission to import temporarily any goods (other than commercial samples, advertising materials and motor vehicles which are dealt with in Parts I and II of this notice) without payment of import duty. The conditions, and the Board’s requirements will be advised to the importer. (Id.) This written application for a temporary exemption from payment of import duties takes the form of an application for a TIP or TIP extension. 6. Section 6 of CEMA provides that “[a]nything done or required to be done by the
Board in pursuance of any of its powers or duties under the customs and excise laws” may be delegated to “the Comptroller-General [of the NCS]” or other officer “authorized by the Board” to act on its behalf. (Id. at ¶ 16.) The Comptroller General is the head of the Nigeria Customs Service (“NCS”) and is the Vice Chairman of the Board. (Id.) Pursuant to the authority in CEMA Section 6, the Board has delegated to NCS the administration of TIP applications and the grant or denial of TIPs and any related extensions. (Id.) Written applications for TIPs for goods such as oil rigs are sent to the Comptroller General and, if TIPs are granted, NCS advises importers of its “requirements” and “conditions” in official correspondence and in TIP approval letters (“TIP grants”). (Id.) 7. Under CEMA and C&E Notice No. 14, a TIP or extension is not automatically
available as of right upon application. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Rather, the Comptroller General may grant a TIP to an importer subject to conditions it sees fit to impose and only if satisfied, after review of the documents or information available, that the goods are imported only temporarily and are intended to be immediately re-exported. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-13, 15-17, 25.) If satisfied, the Comptroller General may then exercise discretion to grant or deny the TIP, weighing the competing government interests involved. (Id.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 10 of 41
In sum, NCS has discretion to grant or deny TIPs or TIP extensions. (Id.) TIPs
are not an entitlement. (Id.)
The TI Code’s Limitation on Serial TIPs and TIP Extensions
In addition to CEMA and C&E Notice No. 14, NCS is bound by certain
procedures and instructions that are issued by the Board. (Olugbesan Aff. at ¶ 19.) These instructions are called “Codes.” (Id.) Each aspect of NCS is governed by a specific Code, which prescribes the particular steps to be taken by NCS officers in the proper discharge of their duties. (Id.) As Board-issued instructions, NCS officers must strictly adhere to the provisions in the Codes at all times and read the Codes in conjunction with the C&E Notices. (Id.) NCS officers have no discretion to ignore or modify the provisions of the Codes. (Id.) Any changes to these Codes can be made only by the Board. (Id.) Any internal NCS circulars or memos to further guide NCS officers in the performance of their duties must be issued by the Comptroller General of NCS at the direction of the Board. (Id.) Circulars and internal memos also cannot contradict the Codes. (Id.) 10. The Temporary Import Code (“TI Code”) is one such Code that was issued by the
Board. (Id. at ¶ 20.) The TI Code provides specific instructions relating to the importation of goods for a temporary and specific use or purpose. (Id.) Section 1 of the TI Code refers to CEMA and C&E Notice No. 14, and states: “[t]he requirements of the Nigeria Customs Service in respect of temporary importation and exportation is contained in Customs and Excise Notice No. 14 of 1959.” (Id. at ¶ 21.) It further states: “[a]ll officers are to familiarize themselves with this Customs Notice which is to be read in conjunction with the following paragraphs.” (Id.) Section 3 of the TI Code further provides that “[w]hen documents are presented requesting temporary admission of goods, great care is to be taken to ensure that the transaction qualifies for
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 11 of 41
concession (See Customs and Excise Notice No. 14).” (Id.) 11. The TI Code includes instructions for each stage of the TIP life cycle, from
application, to grant or denial, to extension of a TIP, and through exportation of the goods out of Nigeria. (Id. at ¶ 22.) 12. Annex C of the TI Code addresses the temporary importation of goods related to
oil exploration and drilling contract operations. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Annex C of the TI Code provides that the Comptroller General of Customs “may discretionally on advise” grant or deny TIPs for equipment and machinery that “fulfil the following conditions, viz:- (a) They are equipments and machines that are acquired on lease basis ONLY; (b) They are solely intended for the execution of major Government Contracts and are for immediate re-exportation at the completion of the contract[; and] (c) Priority attention is granted to oil exploration and drilling contract operation – Particularly the offshore deep sea oil drilling exploration and operation.” (Id.) 13. Annex C of the TI Code further provides: PROCEDURE: The importer who is a party to the contract makes a formal application to Headquarters – Comptroller General of Customs (CGC), asking for authority to import a specific equipment or machinery. Attached to the application are the following documents, viz:(a) (b) (c) (d) Contract Agreement; Specific type of equipment and brochure of such equipment; Lease Agreement; Photocopy Certificate of Registration and License to operate as an oil operator or Drilling Company as applicable. After consideration of the merits, approval may be granted for a period of twelve (12) months or less depending on the duration of the Contract. Concession granted here must not be renewed more than
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 12 of 41
once and the duration of the renewal must not exceed twelve months. (Id. at ¶ 24.) 14. The limit on the number of permissible extensions for TIPs granted on oil drilling
rigs stated in item (f) of Annex C to the TI Code is also stated in Section 16 of the TI Code. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Section 16 concerns “extension of period of temporary importation” and provides: In the event of the importer of ordinary trade goods requiring an extension of the period of three or six months or one year…, he may apply for such extension to the Customs Area Controller, and produce with his application, the relevant Form Sale 33 – Application for Delivery without Payment of Duty on Goods Temporarily Imported (Other than motor vehicles) and attach documents. If satisfied that an extension is reasonable and necessary, the Customs Area Controller showing the new date on which exportation is to be effected. He is also, where applicable, to notify details of the extension granted to the proper officer at the place of importation who is to note the extension on the duplicate Form Sale 33 and the Continuous Record of Deposits, or on the Record of Bonds in Force. In the case of Oil rigs, … an application for extension can only be approved by the Comptroller General of Customs. For both cases extension is only allowed once. (Id.) 15. In summary, the Comptroller General has discretion under TI Code Section 16 to
grant an extension if he “is satisfied that an extension is reasonable and necessary.” (Id.) But that discretion is limited by a prohibition on serial extensions. Under item (e) of Annex C, an initial TIP may only be “granted for a period of twelve (12) months or less depending on the duration of the contract.” (Id.) And under item (f) and Section 16, a TIP “must not be renewed more than once and the duration of the renewal must not exceed twelve months.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2425, 27.) These rules result in a total allowable maximum period under a TIP and any extension
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 13 of 41
of 24 months or the term of the contract, whichever is less. (Id. at ¶ 27.) 16. If a drilling rig is not exported out of Nigeria within the time period set by the
initial TIP and one extension (if granted), Section 22 of the TI Code states that NCS “is to request the Principal or the surety to the Bond to enter the goods for home consumption and pay the import duty thereon.” (Id. at ¶ 26.) The process of paying the import duty and entering for home consumption goods that had originally been brought into Nigeria under a TIP is called “conversion to home use.” (Id.)
Other TIP Procedures
TIP applications are processed by NCS without charge or fee to the applicant.
(Olugbesan Aff. at ¶ 17.) The Nigerian government does not charge any fees to those who apply for a TIP. (Id.) 18. TIPs are granted only for goods that are outside of Nigeria. Only after the TIP is
granted may the goods enter the country. (Id. at ¶ 18.) B. 19. Nigerian Law Prohibiting the Use of False Paperwork CEMA also prohibits the making of false declarations and the falsification of
documents. (Olugbesan Aff. at ¶ 28.) Section 161(1) of CEMA states that “if any person … makes or signs, or causes to be made or signed, or delivers or causes to be delivered, to the Board or an officer, any declaration, notice, certificate or other document whatsoever … which is untrue in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.” (Id.) Section 161(3) further provides that any person who makes such false declarations either knowingly or recklessly shall be liable to a fine of one thousand naira or to imprisonment for two years or to both, and the goods shall be forfeited. (Id.) Similarly, Section 161(4) provides that “where any person commits an offence under this section in such circumstances that he is not
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 14 of 41
liable under [Section 161(3)] of this section, he shall be liable to a fine of six hundred naira.” (Id.) 20. Section 162 of CEMA provides: If any person— (a) counterfeits or falsifies any document which is required by or under the customs and excise laws or which is used for the transaction of any business relating to customs and excise; or (b) knowingly accepts, receives or uses any such document so counterfeited or falsified; or (c) alters any such document after it is officially issued; or (d) counterfeits any seal, signature, initials or other mark of, or used by, any officer for the verification of such document or for the security of goods or for any other purpose relating to customs and excise, he shall be liable to a fine of one thousand naira or to imprisonment for two years, or to both. (Id. at ¶ 29.) 21. Section 164 of CEMA also states that anyone who is “knowingly concerned in
any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable … shall be liable to a fine of six times the value of the goods or four hundred naira, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for two years, or to both.” (Id. at ¶ 30.) V. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the SEC sets forth the following undisputed facts in support of its request for partial summary judgment. Documents and testimony cited in this Statement of Undisputed Facts are attached as exhibits and referenced herein as “Exh. __.” The following paragraphs are cited in the argument section of this motion as “UF¶__.”
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 15 of 41
Background Noble Corporation (“Noble”) is an international provider of offshore drilling
services and equipment to oil companies throughout the world, including Nigeria. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 1; Ruehlen Answer [Dkt. #108] at ¶ 1.) Noble Drilling (Nigeria) Ltd., (“Noble-Nigeria” or “West Africa Division”) is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Noble that conducts Noble’s operations in Nigeria. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 18; Ruehlen Answer [Dkt. #108] at ¶ 18.) Its financial results are consolidated into the financial statements of Noble. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 18.) 2. Defendant Mark A. Jackson (“Jackson”) was: Noble’s Chief Financial Officer
(“CFO”) from September 1, 2000 to September 26, 2005; Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) from March 1, 2005 to April, 2007; Acting CFO from March 2006 to November 2006; President from February 10, 2006 to September 20, 2007; and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) from October 30, 2006 to September 20, 2007. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 5; Jackson Dep. (Exh. 1) at 57:7-19.) Jackson also served as Chairman of Noble’s Board of Directors from April 30, 2007 to September 20, 2007. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 5.) 3. Jackson resigned from Noble and his positions as President, CEO and Chairman
of the Board of Directors of Noble on September 20, 2007. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 8.) 4. Defendant James J. Ruehlen (“Ruehlen”) was the Division Manager of Noble’s
West Africa Division and a member of Noble-Nigeria’s Board of Directors from September 2004 to June 2011. (Ruehlen Answer [Dkt. #108] at ¶¶ 14-16.) In June 2011, Ruehlen became the Vice President and Division Manager of Noble’s Mexico Division, a position he still holds today. (Id. at ¶ 14.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 16 of 41
Noble’s Rigs in Nigeria From January 2003 through approximately October 2004, Noble had six rigs in
Nigeria: the Noble Don Walker, the Noble Tommy Craighead, the Noble Percy Johns, the Noble Lloyd Noble, the Noble Roy Butler, and the Noble Ed Noble. (Exh. 2 at 10; Exh. 3 at 10; Exh. 4; Exh. 5; Strikwerda Dep. (Exh. 6) at 15:14-23; Dowden Dep. (Exh. 7) at 126:19-127:18.) 6. Noble imported a seventh rig, the Noble Homer Ferrington, into Nigeria in about
November 2004. (Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 238:1-10; Exhs. 9, 10; Exh. 11 at 3, 10.) 7. From January 2003 through May 2007, these rigs were located in Nigeria to drill
oil wells offshore pursuant to contracts with oil companies. (See Jackson Answer [Dkt. #107] at ¶ 19; Ruehlen Answer [Dkt. #108] at ¶ 19; Exh. 3 at 10; Exh. 11 at 10; Hilhorst Dep. (Exh. 12) at 25:16-27:3; Strikwerda Dep. (Exh. 6) at 15:1-16:25; Arthur Dep. (Exh. 13) at 24:13-25.) 8. In late 2005, Noble exported the Noble Don Walker to perform a contract in
Benin. (Exh. 14.) By early 2006, Noble had reimported the Noble Don Walker into Nigeria. (Exh. 15.) 9. Other than the export and re-import of the Noble Don Walker in 2005/2006,
Noble did not export and re-import any rig that was in Nigeria between 2003 and 2007. (See, e.g., Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 71:17-72:4, 83:10-14, 85:2-21, 160:22-25, 161:21-25; Middleton Dep. (Exh. 16) at 35:18-36:4, 37:11-17; Strikwerda Dep. (Exh. 6) at 23:12-15; Arthur Dep. (Exh. 13) at 62:1-13; Hilhorst Dep. (Exh. 12) at 104:8-22; Dowden Dep. (Exh. 7) at 126:19-127:18, 146:3-9, 147:1-18.) 10. Noble did not pay the duties to convert any of its rigs to home use from 2003 to
2007. (Dowden Dep. (Exh. 7) at 129:4-18; Strikwerda Dep. (Exh. 6) at 37:7-12, 59:11-14; Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 102:25-103:3.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 17 of 41
Instead, Noble obtained from NCS additional new TIPs and TIP extensions for its
rigs between 2003 and 2007. (Dowden Dep. (Exh. 7) at 129:4-18, 146:3-9, 147:1-18; Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 61:7-10, 71:17-72:4, 83:10-14, 85:2-21, 102:25-103:3.) 12. Noble obtained TIPs for its rigs already operating in Nigeria with paperwork
representing that the rigs had been exported out of Nigeria and then imported back into Nigeria, when in fact the rigs had not moved. (Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 71:17-72:4, 83:10-14, 85:2-21; Dowden Dep. (Exh. 7) at 146:3-9, 147:1-18, 148:11-149:6; Arthur Dep. (Exh. 13) at 63:9-64:1; Strikwerda Dep. (Exh. 6) at 49:16-50:9; Middleton Dep. (Exh. 16) at 34:16-37:16.) 13. Noble also authorized its agent to pay government officials for TIPs and TIP
extensions it received for its rigs in Nigeria. (Jackson Dep. (Exh. 1) at 264:6-9; Ruehlen Investigative Testimony (Exh. 17) at 45:4-10, 158:6-9, 192:20-24, 312:7-13, 314:13-25, 315:11316:9, 317:7-12; Ruehlen Dep. (Exh. 8) at 85:2-21.) 14. Noble employees, including Jackson and Ruehlen, used the term “special
handling” to refer to unreceipted payments to one or more government officials to obtain a TIP or TIP extension. (Exh. 18 at Response #5; Ruehlen Investigative Testimony (Exh. 17) at 45:410, 158:6-9, 192:20-24, 312:7-13, 314:13-25, 315:11-316:9, 317:7-12.) 15. Noble’s agent invoiced Noble for services rendered to obtain the TIPs and TIP
extensions, including payment of special handling to government officials. (Ruehlen Investigative Testimony (Exh. 17) at 45:4-48:11, 158:6-21, 192:20-24, 250:22-251:5, 312:7-13, 314:13-25, 315:11-316:9, 317:7-12.) Noble’s payment of the invoice reimbursed the agent for special handling payments already made pursuant to Noble’s prior authorization. (Ruehlen Investigative Testimony (Exh. 17) at 45:4-48:11, 158:6-21, 192:20-24, 193:7-194:15, 197:6-11, 312:7-13, 314:13-25, 315:11-316:9, 317:7-12.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 18 of 41
Noble Obtained TIPs and TIP Extensions Using False Paperwork and Payments to Government Officials
Drilling Rig Noble Don Walker
Noble Don Walker Second Extension dated August 5, 2005. By application
dated May 18, 2005, Noble applied for a second extension to a TIP originally granted on January 30, 2004, for the Noble Don Walker. (Exh. 19.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized its agent, I.C. Network (“ICN”) to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,120) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 20, 21.) NCS granted that second TIP extension for a period of six months on August 5, 2005. (Exh. 22.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling to procure the “2nd extension.” (Exh. 23.) 17. Noble Don Walker TIP dated January 24, 2006. In December 2005, Noble
applied for a new TIP for the Noble Don Walker. (Exh. 24.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦5,000,000 (approximately $38,462) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 25, 26.) NCS granted the TIP for a period of twelve months on January 24, 2006. (Exh. 27.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦28,065,940 for services rendered in obtaining this TIP, including ₦5,000,000 in special handling. (Exhs. 28, 29, 30, 31.) 18. Noble Don Walker First Extension dated March 6, 2007. In February 2007,
Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the Noble Don Walker. (Exh. 32.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exh. 33, 34.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on March 6, 2007. (Exh. 35.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 36.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 19 of 41
Drilling Rig Noble Ed Noble
Noble Ed Noble Second Extension dated December 7, 2004. In November 2004,
Noble applied for a second extension to a TIP that it had received in 2003 for the rig Noble Ed Noble. (Exh. 37.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 38, 39, 40.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on December 7, 2004. (Exh. 41.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 42.) 20. Noble Ed Noble Third Extension dated June 13, 2005. In May 2005, Noble
applied for a third TIP extension to the TIP it had received in 2003 for the rig Noble Ed Noble. (Exh. 43.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦5,000,000 (approximately $37,900) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 44, 45.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on June 13, 2005. (Exh. 46.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,367,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦5,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 47.) 21. Noble Ed Noble False Paperwork TIP dated January 24, 2006. In December
2005, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Ed Noble. (Exh. 48.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 14, Fleet Status Update at 3; Exh. 15.) On January 16, 2006, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2004 based on “evidence of re-exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 49.) On January 24, 2006, NCS granted the new TIP for a period of twelve months. (Exh. 50.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,200,000 (approximately $55,384) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 51, 52, 53.) ICN invoiced Noble
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 20 of 41
more than ₦26,056,275 for services rendered in obtaining the TIP, including ₦2,200,000 in special handling outwards/inwards and ₦5,000,000 in special handling to procure the TIP. (Exhs. 54, 55, 56, 57.) 22. Noble Ed Noble First Extension dated March 6, 2007. In February 2007, Noble
applied for an extension to the TIP for the Noble Ed Noble. (Exh. 58.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exh. 59, 60.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on March 6, 2007. (Exh. 61.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 62.)
Drilling Rig Noble Roy Butler
Noble Roy Butler First Extension dated February 1, 2005. In December 2004,
Noble applied for a first extension to the TIP obtained on January 30, 2004 for the rig Noble Roy Butler. (Exhs. 63, 64.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 65, 66.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on February 1, 2005. (Exh. 67.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling payments. (Exh. 68.) 24. Noble Roy Butler Second Extension dated August 5, 2005. By application dated
May 18, 2005, Noble applied for a second extension to the TIP obtained on January 30, 2004 for the rig Noble Roy Butler. (Exh. 69.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,120) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 70, 71.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on August 5, 2005. (Exh. 72.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 21 of 41
₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 73.) 25. Noble Roy Butler False Paperwork TIP dated March 7, 2006. By application
dated January 4, 2006, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Roy Butler. (Exh. 74.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 15.) On February 10, 2006, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2004. (Exh. 75.) On March 7, 2006, NCS granted the new TIP for a period of twelve months. (Exh. 76.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,200,000 (approximately $55,384) in special handling to government officials. (Exh. 77, 78.) ICN invoiced Noble more than ₦25,054,112 for services rendered in obtaining the TIP, including ₦2,200,000 for special handling outwards/inwards and ₦5,000,000 in special handling to procure the TIP. (Exhs. 55, 56, 79, 80.) 26. Noble Roy Butler First Extension dated May 10, 2007. In or about March 2007,
Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the Noble Roy Butler. (Exh. 81.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,308) in special handling to government officials. (Exh. 82.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on May 10, 2007. (Exh. 83.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 84.)
Drilling Rig Noble Lloyd Noble
Noble Lloyd Noble False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005. In February 2005,
Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Lloyd Noble. (Exh. 85.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 86, Fleet Status Update at 3.) On March 1, 2005, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2003 based on “evidence of the re-exportation of the
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 22 of 41
vessel.” (Exh. 87.) On May 9, 2005, NCS granted the new TIP for a period of twelve months. (Exh. 88.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦6,900,000 (approximately $51,707) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦22,675,454.60 for services rendered in obtaining the TIP, including ₦1,900,000 for special handling outwards/inwards and ₦5,000,000 in special handling to procure the TIP. (Exhs. 95, 96.) 28. Noble Lloyd Noble First Extension dated August 14, 2006. By application dated
March 15, 2006, Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Lloyd Noble. (Exh. 97.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 98, 99.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on August 14, 2006. (Exh. 100.). ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 101.) 29. Noble Lloyd Noble Second Extension dated November 20, 2006. In October
2006, Noble applied for a second extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Lloyd Noble. (Exh. 102.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 103, 104.) NCS granted the extension for a period of six months on November 20, 2006. (Exh. 105.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling payments. (Exh. 106.) 30. Noble Lloyd Noble False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007. In March
2007, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Lloyd Noble. (Exh. 107.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 23 of 41
was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 108, Fleet Status Update at 3.) To obtain the TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,200,000 (approximately $56,251) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 109, 110, 111.) On April 25, 2007, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2005 based on “evidence of re-exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 112.) Noble did not ultimately obtain the TIP because it told ICN to suspend work on securing the TIP. (Exh. 113.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,100,340.60 for services rendered in cancelling the old TIP and bond through exportation “outwards” of the rig, including ₦2,200,000 for special handling outwards/inwards. (Exh. 114.)
Drilling Rig Noble Percy Johns
Noble Percy Johns Third Extension dated September 1, 2004. By application
dated April 26, 2004, Noble applied for a third TIP extension to the TIP that it had received in 2002 for the rig Noble Percy Johns. (Exh. 115.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦5,000,000 (approximately $35,000) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 116, 117, 118.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on September 1, 2004. (Exh. 119.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,367,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦5,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 120.) 32. Noble Percy Johns False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005. In February 2005,
Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Percy Johns. (Exh. 121.) By applying, Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 86, Fleet Status Update at 3; Exh. 122.) On March 1, 2005, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2002 based on “evidence of the re-exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 123.) On May 9, 2005, NCS granted the new TIP for a period of twelve months. (Exh. 121.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦6,900,000 (approximately $51,707) in
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 24 of 41
special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦22,276,342 for services rendered in obtaining the TIP, including ₦1,900,000 for special handling outwards/inwards and ₦5,000,000 in special handling to procure the TIP. (Exhs. 124, 125.) 33. Noble Percy Johns First Extension dated August 14, 2006. By application dated
March 15, 2006, Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Percy Johns. (Exhs. 126, 127.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 128, 129.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on August 14, 2006. (Exh. 130.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 131.) 34. Noble Percy Johns Second Extension dated November 20, 2006. In October
2006, Noble applied for a second extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Percy Johns. (Exh. 132.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 133, 134.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on November 20, 2006. (Exh. 135.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 136.) 35. Noble Percy Johns False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007. In March
2007, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Percy Johns. (Exh. 137.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 108, Fleet Status Update at 3; Exh. 138, Fleet Status Update at 3.) To obtain the TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,200,000 (approximately $56,251) in special
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 25 of 41
handling to government officials. (Exh. 111, 139, 140.) On April 25, 2007, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2005 based on “evidence of re-exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 112.) Noble did not ultimately obtain the TIP because it told ICN to suspend work on securing the TIP. (Exh. 113.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,051,949.40 (approximately $38,272) for services rendered in cancelling the old TIP and bond through exportation “outwards” of the rig, including ₦2,200,000 for special handling outwards/inwards. (Exh. 141.)
Drilling Rig Noble Tommy Craighead
Noble Tommy Craighead Third Extension dated August 23, 2004. In July 2004,
Noble applied for a third extension of the TIP that it had received in 2002 for the rig Noble Tommy Craighead. (Exh. 142.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦5,000,000 (approximately $35,000) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 117, 118, 143.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on August 23, 2004. (Exh. 144.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,367,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦5,000,000 in special handling. (Exh 145.) 37. Noble Tommy Craighead False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005. In February
2005, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Tommy Craighead. (Exh. 146.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 86, Fleet Status Update at 3; Exh. 122.) On March 1, 2005, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2002 based on “evidence of the re-exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 147.) On May 9, 2005, NCS granted the new TIP for a period of twelve months. (Exh. 148.) To obtain this TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦6,900,000 (approximately $51,707) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦21,950,413 for services rendered in obtaining the TIP,
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 26 of 41
including ₦1,900,000 for special handling outwards/inwards and ₦5,000,000 in special handling to procure the TIP. (Exhs. 149, 150.) 38. Noble Tommy Craighead First Extension dated August 14, 2006. By
application dated March 15, 2006, Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Tommy Craighead. (Exhs. 151, 152.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 129, 153.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on August 14, 2006. (Exh. 154.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 155. ) 39. Noble Tommy Craighead Second Extension dated November 20, 2006. In
October 2006, Noble applied for a second extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Tommy Craighead. (Exh. 156.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦1,600,000 (approximately $12,500) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 134, 157.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on November 20, 2006. (Exh. 158.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦1,862,500 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦1,600,000 in special handling. (Exh. 159.) 40. Noble Tommy Craighead False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007. In
March 2007, Noble applied for a new TIP for the rig Noble Tommy Craighead. (Exh. 160.) The application indicated that Noble was seeking approval to import the rig into Nigeria. (Id.) In truth, the rig was already in Nigeria. (Exh. 108, Fleet Status Update at 3; Exh. 138, Fleet Status Update at 3.) To obtain the TIP, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,200,000 (approximately $56,251) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 111, 161, 162.) On April 25, 2007, NCS cancelled the bond securing the prior TIP granted in 2005 based on “evidence of re-
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 27 of 41
exportation of the vessel.” (Exh. 112.) Noble did not ultimately obtain the TIP because it told ICN to suspend work on securing the TIP. (Exh. 113.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦5,053,236.40 for services rendered in cancelling the old TIP and bond through exportation “outwards” of the rig, including ₦2,200,000 in special handling. (Exh. 163.)
Drilling Rig Noble Homer Ferrington
Noble Homer Ferrington TIP dated October 10, 2004. In October 2004, Noble
obtained a twelve month TIP from NCS for the rig Noble Homer Ferrington. (Exh. 164.) In November 2004, Noble imported the rig into Nigeria. (Exh. 11 at 3.) 42. Noble Homer Ferrington First Extension dated November 4, 2005. In October
2005, Noble applied for an extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Homer Ferrington. (Exh. 165.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized its agent, Murphy Shipping & Comm. Services Ltd. (“Murphy”), to pay ₦3,000,000 (approximately $23,256) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 166, 167.) NCS granted the TIP extension for a period of six months on November 4, 2005. (Exh. 168.) Murphy invoiced Noble ₦3,525,000 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦3,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 169.) 43. Noble Homer Ferrington Second Extension dated April 25, 2006. In April
2006, Noble applied for and NCS granted a second extension to the TIP for the Noble Homer Ferrington. (Exh. 170.) The extension granted was for a period of six months. (Id.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized Murphy to pay ₦3,000,000 (approximately $23,256) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 171, 172.) Murphy invoiced Noble ₦3,525,000 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦3,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 173.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 28 of 41
Noble Homer Ferrington Third Extension dated October 30, 2006. In October
2006, Noble applied for and NCS granted a third extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Homer Ferrington. (Exh. 174.) The extension granted was for a period of six months. (Id.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized Murphy to pay ₦3,000,000 (approximately $23,438) in special handling to government officials. (Exh. 175.) Murphy invoiced Noble ₦3,525,000 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦3,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 176.) 45. Noble Homer Ferrington Fourth Extension dated April 30, 2007. In April
2007, Noble applied for, and NCS granted, a fourth extension to the TIP for the rig Noble Homer Ferrington. (Exh. 177.) The extension granted was for a period of six months. (Id.) To obtain this extension, Noble authorized ICN to pay ₦7,000,000 (approximately $54,687) in special handling to government officials. (Exhs. 178, 179, 180.) ICN invoiced Noble ₦7,525,000 for services rendered in obtaining this extension, including ₦7,000,000 in special handling. (Exh. 181.) VI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is warranted where the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting papers demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the movant has made such a showing, the opposing party cannot escape summary judgment based on mere allegations in the pleadings, id. at 324, and it “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 596 (1986). The opposing party must identify in the record “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quotation omitted).
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 29 of 41
ARGUMENT A. Noble’s payments to obtain discretionary exemptions from import duties are not permissible facilitating payments under the FCPA.
The facilitating payment exception is inapplicable in this case as a matter of law, first and foremost, because Noble paid government officials to obtain a valuable privilege—an exemption from import duties—that those officials granted to Noble at their discretion. Payments for discretionary benefits from government officials are nothing like the “innocuous” payments for routine services that Congress aimed to excuse under the facilitating payments exception. United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738, 755 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Kay I”). This Court resolved the relevant legal question in its ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Recognizing that the FCPA was designed to cast a “wide net over foreign bribery,” the Court held that the exception for facilitating payments “refers to a ‘very narrow categor[y] of largely non-discretionary, ministerial activities performed by mid- or low-level foreign functionaries.’” Dkt. No. 87 at 20, 33 (quoting Kay I, 359 F.3d at 749, 751) (emphasis added). By carving out this narrow category, Congress only “intended to exclude from the FCPA’s reach ‘those payments which merely move a particular matter toward an eventual act or decision or which do not involve any discretionary action.’” Id. at 33 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 8) (emphasis added). In short, the Court made clear that the touchstone of a facilitating payment is a lack of discretion on the part of government officials to deny the outcome sought by the payment. The Court’s prior conclusion is confirmed by the language of the statute and the Fifth Circuit’s extensive analysis of its legislative history. The statute provides that facilitating payments for “‘routine governmental actions’ means only an action which is ordinarily and commonly performed by a foreign official in—”:
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 30 of 41
(i) obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country; (ii) processing governmental papers, such as visas and work orders; (iii) providing police protection, mail pick-up, and delivery, or scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or inspections related to transit of goods across country; (iv) providing phone service, power and water supply, loading and unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products or commodities from deterioration; or (v) actions of a similar nature. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f)(3)(A). The routine actions specified here are the sorts of basic services that government officials are typically required to provide, such as “processing governmental papers,” “providing police protection,” and providing “power and water supply.” Although subsection (1) “includes ‘obtaining permits’ as an example of the type of action that typically qualifies as routine,” the Court interpreted the example “to refer to obtaining permits to which one is properly entitled.” 1 Dkt. No. 87 at 33. The common thread that unites the statute’s various examples of facilitating payments is the notion that it is generally permissible to pay a government official to do properly what he is already clearly obligated to do. The Fifth Circuit confirmed this understanding, explaining that Congress was not principally concerned with prohibiting “payments that get an official to perform properly those usually ministerial duties required of his office.” Kay I, 359 F.3d at 749 n.40; see also, e.g., id. at 747 (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-114, at 10) (describing facilitating payments as payments for the “proper performance of duties”); id. at 748 (quoting SEC Report to
The SEC notes that Mr. Ruehlen’s own proposed expert testified: “By ‘routine,” what I have in mind is driver’s license renewals [and] customs clearances . . . the kind of government service that is repeated, routine, and usually involves – or often involves a significant portion of the population or a significant portion of the population will need those services.” (Amb. Campbell Dep. (Exh. 182) at 146.) Campbell also distinguished the TIPs and TIP extensions at issue in this case from “routine” customs clearances. (Id. at 145-47.)
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 31 of 41
Congress) (defining “grease” payments as “payments to persuade low-level government officials to perform functions or services which they are obliged to perform as part of their governmental responsibilities, but which they may refuse or delay unless compensated”). There is a fundamental difference, however, between paying a government official to do his job of providing a necessary service and paying a government official to exercise his discretion to award a valuable benefit. The latter is not a facilitating payment; it is instead the very bribery that Congress intended to eradicate. As the Fifth Circuit reasoned, Congress sought to prohibit “the type of bribery” that “prompts officials to misuse their discretionary authority,” while “at the same time recognizing that smaller payments intended to expedite ministerial actions should remain outside the scope of the statute.” Kay I, 539 F.3d at 747 (emphasis added); see also id. (defining “corrupt” actions as “actions requiring [an official] to misuse his official position and his discretionary authority”). Awarding a discretionary benefit in exchange for money is the quintessential misuse of authority. As this Court held as a matter of law, payments for discretionary government benefits cannot be permissible facilitating payments. Dkt. No. 87 at 33. The only question here is whether the TIPs that Noble received (as well as the numerous extensions of those TIPs) were discretionary benefits. When the Court gave the SEC leave to amend its complaint to “support the allegation that granting TIP extensions is a matter of discretion,” the Court indicated that the “simplest way to do so would be to plead the Nigerian law or policy that so provides.” Dkt. No. 87 at 35. The SEC did so 2 and, as set forth in the SEC’s Rule 44.1 Motion, Nigerian law made the granting of import duty exemptions
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 106 ¶ 23 (“CEMA vests discretion in NCS to grant or deny TIPs and TIP extensions that avoid (temporarily and conditionally) import duties chargeable on goods such as rigs.”).
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 32 of 41
discretionary. 3 That conclusion as a matter of law compels summary judgment.
Nigerian law provides that the grant of TIPs and TIP extensions is a discretionary act.
The Nigerian Customs and Excise Management Act No. 55 of 1958 generally requires the payment of import duties: “[N]o imported goods shall be delivered or removed on importation until the importer has paid to the proper officer any duty chargeable thereon . . . .” NL¶2. Despite this general requirement to pay import duties, CEMA permits the Board of Customs and Excise to grant exemptions from those duties for goods temporarily imported. NL¶3. The statute, however, makes clear that these temporary exemptions are discretionary: “[W]here the Board is satisfied that goods are imported only temporarily and are intended to be re-exported . . ., it may permit the goods to be delivered on importation . . . subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose, without payment of duty.” NL¶3 (emphasis added). The Board’s discretion, in turn, has been delegated to NCS to determine whether to grant a temporary exemption or extend one already granted. NL¶6. The discretion conferred by CEMA is also reiterated and confirmed in the regulations and codes issued by the Board. Thus, C&E Notice No. 14 provides that exemptions are allowed if officials are “satisfied,” after review of the documents submitted, that the goods are to be imported only temporarily. NL¶7. The TI Code also further reiterates that TIPs “may” be granted “discretionally on advise” after “consideration of the merits,” and that TIPs may be extended if officials are “satisfied that an extension is reasonable and necessary.” NL¶¶12, 14. Nigerian law thus makes clear that TIPs and TIP extensions are a privilege, subject to limitation, which temporarily exempts the recipient from taxes. Nothing in CEMA, or anywhere else in Nigerian law, entitled Noble to receive a tax exemption or required officials to grant one.
The SEC incorporates by reference the arguments set forth in its separately-filed Rule 44.1 Motion. For the Court’s convenience, the salient provisions of Nigerian law are summarized herein. See also Section IV, supra.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 33 of 41
NL¶¶3, 7, 8. And, when NCS granted temporary exemptions, the statute establishes that Noble received these benefits only at the discretion of Nigerian officials, and only on terms that those officials “s[aw] fit to impose.” NL¶3.
Each of the payments at issue in this case was authorized to obtain discretionary import duty exemptions.
As set forth above, the applicable Nigerian law is clear and undisputed: the grant of a temporary import duty exemption is a discretionary act. The material facts are likewise straightforward and undisputed. 4 Noble sought import duty exemptions for its rigs on thirty (30) occasions between August 2004 and May 2007. UF¶¶5-45. For each import duty exemption sought, Noble authorized payments to government officials ranging from approximately $12,120 to $56,251 per transaction. UF¶¶16-45. Because Nigerian law makes the grant of import duty exemptions discretionary, Noble’s payments to obtain those exemptions are not permissible facilitating payments under the FCPA. B. Noble’s payments to obtain illegal exemptions from import taxes are not permissible facilitating payments under the FCPA.
There is a second and independent reason that many of the payments at issue in this case are not permissible facilitating payments. Aside from Nigerian law providing that all of the import duty exemptions Noble obtained were discretionary, many of the payments at issue cannot be facilitating payments because the import duty exemptions were illegal. The SEC alleged in its original complaint that defendants “authorized payments to foreign officials in order to obtain TIPs based on false paperwork,” and the Court held that this allegation, if proven,
The facts set forth in the Statement of Undisputed Facts are voluminous, owing primarily to the number of transactions at issue. However, the material facts are straightforward: For each of the 30 transactions detailed in Section V.C, supra, Noble authorized payments to government officials in connection with seeking discretionary import duty exemptions. For the purposes of this motion the only material fact is that payments to government officials were authorized and, as a matter of law, NCS had discretion to grant or deny a TIP or TIP extension. At this juncture, to negate the applicability of the facilitating payment exception, the SEC need not prove whether the payments were authorized with corrupt intent.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 34 of 41
would “easily negate the ‘facilitating’ payments exception.” Dkt. No. 87 at 33-34. Similarly, payments “to obtain TIPs in a manner that violated Nigerian law” in other ways, such as obtaining prohibited second, third or fourth extensions, also cannot be facilitating payments. Id. at 33. After all, the “grant of permits by government officials that have no authority to grant permits on the basis sought is in no way a ministerial act nor can it be characterized as ‘speeding the proper performance of a foreign official’s duties.’” Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 95-640, at 8); see also Kay I, 359 F.3d at 756 (finding that Congress was concerned about bribery that “include[d] illicit payments made to officials to obtain favorable but unlawful tax treatment”).
Noble’s TIPs based on false paperwork were illegal.
Although there are myriad reasons why Noble’s import duty exemptions were illegal, the most obvious reason is that many of them were obtained based on false paperwork. Noble sought and obtained new TIPs for its oil rigs using paperwork in which it represented that the rigs had been exported out of Nigeria and re-imported back into Nigeria under a new TIP. UF¶12. But these representations were false; with one exception, 5 the rigs never in fact moved. UF¶¶5-9. This use of false paperwork enabled Noble to evade paying import duties for years. UF¶10-11. In fact, Noble never paid import duties on any of the rigs it had in Nigeria. UF¶10. Specifically, Noble sought TIPs based on false paperwork (and related illegal payments to Nigerian officials) on the following eight occasions during the relevant time period: 1. Noble Lloyd Noble False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005 (UF¶27) 2. Noble Percy Johns False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005 (UF¶32) 3. Noble Tommy Craighead False Paperwork TIP dated May 9, 2005 (UF¶37) 4. Noble Ed Noble False Paperwork TIP dated January 24, 2006 (UF¶21)
The Noble Don Walker was physically exported to Benin and subsequently re-imported in connection with a drilling contract. UF¶8.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 35 of 41
5. Noble Roy Butler False Paperwork TIP dated March 7, 2006 (UF¶25) 6. Noble Lloyd Noble False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007 (UF¶30) 7. Noble Percy Johns False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007 (UF¶35) 8. Noble Tommy Craighead False Paperwork TIP attempted March 2007 (UF¶40) The use of false paperwork to procure new TIPs (and to extend those TIPs once falsely procured) during the relevant period was illegal under Nigerian law, 6 which specifically prohibits submitting any untrue declarations or falsified documents to customs officials. NL¶¶19-20. Anyone who does so even unintentionally is strictly liable for fines; and doing so intentionally is a crime punishable by up to two years in prison. NL¶¶19. Moreover, it is not only illegal to submit false paperwork, but also to knowingly accept, receive, or use it. NL¶20. And anyone knowingly involved in any “fraudulent evasion” of import duties can be punished by up to two years in prison. NL¶21. Thus, Noble’s payments to Nigerian officials to process TIPs based on false paperwork cannot be considered permissible facilitating payments. The payments induced officials to violate their lawful duties and enabled Noble to illegally avoid paying import taxes for years without moving its rigs.
Noble’s second, third, and fourth TIP extensions were illegal.
In addition to the use of false paperwork to obtain new TIPs, twelve of Noble’s import duty exemptions were illegal because they violated official rules promulgated by the Board of Customs and Excise, which limited the discretion of NCS officials to grant TIP extensions under certain circumstances. Most significantly, these rules prohibited oil rigs from receiving more than one extension of a TIP, and they limited the duration of any such extension to a maximum
See Rule 44.1 Motion at 8-10, 19-20.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 36 of 41
of twelve months. 7 NL¶¶9-16. These rules are found in Section 16 of the TI Code, which states that an “extension is only allowed once,” as well as Annex C to the TI Code, which sets forth the “procedure” for oil rigs and provides that TIP extensions “must not be renewed more than once” and that “the duration of the renewal must not exceed twelve months.” 8 NL¶¶13-14. Despite these rules prohibiting more than one extension, Noble obtained seven second extensions, four third extensions, and one fourth extension for its rigs during the relevant time period: 9 Second Extensions 1. Noble Ed Noble Second Extension dated December 7, 2004 (UF¶19) 2. Noble Don Walker Second Extension dated August 5, 2005 (UF¶16) 3. Noble Roy Butler Second Extension dated August 5, 2005 (UF¶24) 4. Noble Homer Ferrington Second Extension dated April 25, 2006 (UF¶43) 5. Noble Lloyd Noble Second Extension dated November 20, 2006 (UF¶29) 6. Noble Percy Johns Second Extension dated November 20, 2006 (UF¶34) 7. Noble Tommy Craighead Second Extension dated November 20, 2006 (UF¶39) Third Extensions 1. Noble Tommy Craighead Third Extension dated August 23, 2004 (UF¶36) 2. Noble Percy Johns Third Extension dated September 1, 2004 (UF¶31) 3. Noble Ed Noble Third Extension dated June 13, 2005 (UF¶20)
Although the details need not be addressed here, Noble’s TIPs and TIP extensions violated numerous other official requirements contained in the TI Code and elsewhere. These violations included obtaining TIPs for rigs that were inconsistent with a rig’s drilling contract and using invalid invoices and improper rig values. See Rule 44.1 Motion at 5-7, 18-19.
To be clear, payments for initial TIPs and first extensions are not facilitating payments, even if Nigerian law allows them, because the decision to grant a TIP or a first extension is discretionary. During the relevant period, Noble sought two initial TIPs upon physical import of rigs (the Noble Homer Ferrington in 2004 and the Noble Don Walker in 2006) and eight first extensions. See UF ¶¶17, 18, 22, 23, 26, 28, 33, 38, 41, 42. The fact that second, third, and fourth TIP extensions are not allowed under Nigerian law is merely an additional independent reason why payments for those extensions are not facilitating payments.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 37 of 41
4. Noble Homer Ferrington Third Extension dated October 30, 2006 (UF¶44) Fourth Extensions 1. Noble Homer Ferrington Fourth Extension dated April 30, 2007 (UF¶45) Because each of Noble’s extensions was for six months, each third extension increased the total duration of the TIP to 30 months, and the one fourth extension increased the total duration of the TIP to 36 months—well beyond the maximum 24-month limit imposed by the TI Code (i.e., an initial TIP not to exceed twelve months, plus a single extension not to exceed twelve months). All of these second, third, and fourth extensions were therefore illegal, and for this additional independent reason, Noble’s payments to Nigerian officials to obtain these extensions cannot be facilitating payments. C. The purported existence of rampant bribery and unlawful conduct in Nigeria does not make Noble’s payments for discretionary or illegal exemptions permissible.
Defendants’ experts largely ignore the dictates of Nigeria’s written law and focus on what they call “informal governance norms”—i.e., the manner in which government officials supposedly conducted themselves in Nigeria. According to defense expert Campbell, “payments to civil servants” for “a wide range of government services” are a “customary and accepted practice” in Nigeria. (Campbell Rpt. at 27-28. 10) Lacking any experience with TIPs or NCS, Campbell also speculates that the practice of using false paperwork to obtain illegal tax exemptions without moving the rigs (euphemistically termed the “paper process”) could have been viewed as “normal and legitimate” by people in Nigeria. (Id. at 60.) This, Campbell says, is simply “the way business is done in Nigeria.” (Campbell Dep. (Exh.182) at 115:24-25.) Conspicuously absent from these unsupported and speculative opinions, however, is any
Campbell’s Rule 26 Report (“Campbell Rpt.”) is attached as Exhibit A to the SEC’s motion to exclude his testimony, filed contemporaneously herewith.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 38 of 41
claim that either the formal law or informal norms of Nigeria entitled Noble to any exemptions from import taxes. 11 There is no claim that customs officials somehow had an “informal” practice of treating TIPs or TIP extensions as an entitlement, despite the discretion afforded them by law. (See Campbell Dep. (Exh. 182) at 145:25-146:1 (“Are TIP extensions routine? I don’t know.”); id. at 146:24-147:4 (Q: “Are you offering any opinions in this case as to whether the TIP or TIP extensions were a benefit to which Noble was entitled?” A: “I am not.”).) Indeed, Campbell confirms the large amount of discretion possessed by customs officials when he characterizes the process of TIP authorizations as “informal,” conducted “in the context of individual applications for particular rigs at particular points in time,” and “subject to ad hoc and erratic change.” (Campbell Rpt. at 49.) Thus, in the alleged informal practice as well as in law, the TIP regime was plainly discretionary. But even if Defendants could somehow show that it was routine to secure import duty exemptions with “customary” payments to government officials, they would only succeed in establishing a pervasive pattern of bribery. Nor can the use of false paperwork or other illegal practices be excused on the ground that they are supposedly “normal” or common in a foreign country. 12 Any other result would eviscerate the FCPA. In enacting the statute, “Congress was motivated to prohibit rampant foreign bribery by domestic business entities.” Kay I, 359 F.3d at
Campbell asserts that “[p]ayments are regularly made to civil servants to expedite a process or to navigate an informal ‘road block’ erected as an impediment to receiving a benefit to which an individual is otherwise entitled.” (Campbell Rpt. at 28-9 (emphasis added).) He also contends that a “customary and accepted practice in Nigerian governance is payment for public services that are required to be delivered as a matter of law, policy or existing regulation.” Id. at 27 (emphasis added). But he does not claim that an exemption from import taxes is a benefit to which anyone is entitled or a public service that any law, policy, or regulation requires to be granted. (Campbell Dep. (Exh. 182) at 145:18-147:4.)
Indeed, CEMA prohibits the use of false paperwork and false statements to obtain TIPs and TIP extensions. Also, as discussed in the SEC’s Rule 44.1 Motion, Nigerian law expressly prohibits payments to government officials for official acts.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 39 of 41
755. Congress could not possibly have sought to prohibit bribery only up to the point at which it becomes pervasive. This would turn the “very limited exception” for facilitating payments into a ready license to bribe officials wherever doing so is “common.” Dkt. No. 87 at 33 (quoting Kay I, 359 F.3d at 750). Put another way, widespread “informal norms” of corruption and bribery are exactly what the FCPA aims to eradicate. It is no defense to say that bribery and illegality are just “the way business is done in Nigeria.” As the Fifth Circuit put it, “multiple violations of a law do not make those violations legal.” United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 442 (2007) (“Kay II) The “fact that other companies [are] guilty of similar bribery . . . does not excuse” a company’s or its employees’ actions under the FCPA. Id. As a matter of law, informal norms and practices regarding TIPs are immaterial to the issue of whether the payments in this case were facilitating payments. It is decisive that Nigerian law makes TIPs and TIP extensions discretionary; and equally decisive is that they were illegally obtained. These legal conclusions compel partial summary judgment on the inapplicability of the facilitating payments exception.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 40 of 41
VIII. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court grant partial summary judgment and hold that payments to obtain exemptions from import duties are not “facilitating payments” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(b). Dated this 28th day of March, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alfred A. Day ALFRED A. DAY MA Bar No. 654436 PATRICK M. BRYAN D.C. Bar No. 490177 S.D. Tex. ID No. 1572792 SHARAN K.S. CUSTER D.C. Bar No. 464495 Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street NE Washington, DC 20549-5949 Telephone: (202) 551-4702 (Day) Counsel for the SEC
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 142 Filed in TXSD on 03/28/14 Page 41 of 41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 28, 2014 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of filing to all CM/ECF participants for this matter. /s/ Alfred A. Day Alfred A. Day
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulSEC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Facilitating Payments) by Mike Koehler0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionSEC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Facilitating Payments)SEC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Facilitating Payments)Interests: Types, Legal formsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedDevelopment Support Communication and Rural Development in Nigeriaby Amosu Deyon 'yinkaRibadu Policyby Aibinuola OlamideA Functional Education Will Make Nigeria Attain the Goals Vision 202020by Nasiru029Military Participation in Development of a Democratic Political Culture in Nigeriaby Alexander DeckerUntitledby eurolexShell - London High Court Ruling on Claims Re Oil Spills in Nigeriaby Kirk HartleyThe Competitive Strategies of Nigerian Fast Food Brandsby Uche NworahNigeria 1by souleymane2013Advertising Has Become an Integral Part of Our Societyby Hardeybeeyea HardeydeyjjyFarah Summary Judgment Orderby Emily BabayARE U TO BLAMEby Timi OlagunjuNigeria Cultureby souleymane2013Nigeria Culture 00by souleymane2013Valenzuela v. West, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)by Scribd Government Docsdby Salawu Moruff AdeyemiCase Study Marketing research GBC toronto by Anmol SinghThe Consulting Industry in Nigeriaby Glory7. Edu Sci - IJESR -Strategies for Effective Implementation of the Nigerian National - Akaboguby TJPRC PublicationsIITA Bulletin 2226by International Institute of Tropical AgricultureTerrorism in Nigeriaby Akinuli OlaleyeMPBAcaseby Kim HarrisonTarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-63-LPS (D. Del. Apr. 21, 2011)by YCSTBlogUtf-8__Combating Corruption in the Nigeria Police_2by bakoniSECRETARY VS CTAby Jarvy PinonganThis Week at the ISN 2015-07.03by Center for Security Studies748by Selim John-Duke AkoweCurrent Event 1 PDF.pdfby Anonymous hPUeEASCO Grp v. Novell Inc - Document No. 353by Justia.comSimilar To SEC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Facilitating Payments)Skip carouselDevelopment Support Communication and Rural Development in NigeriaRibadu PolicyA Functional Education Will Make Nigeria Attain the Goals Vision 202020Military Participation in Development of a Democratic Political Culture in NigeriaUntitledShell - London High Court Ruling on Claims Re Oil Spills in NigeriaThe Competitive Strategies of Nigerian Fast Food BrandsNigeria 1Advertising Has Become an Integral Part of Our SocietyFarah Summary Judgment OrderARE U TO BLAMENigeria CultureNigeria Culture 00Valenzuela v. West, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)dCase Study Marketing research GBC toronto The Consulting Industry in Nigeria7. Edu Sci - IJESR -Strategies for Effective Implementation of the Nigerian National - AkaboguIITA Bulletin 2226Terrorism in NigeriaMPBAcaseTarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-63-LPS (D. Del. Apr. 21, 2011)Utf-8__Combating Corruption in the Nigeria Police_2SECRETARY VS CTAThis Week at the ISN 2015-07.03748Current Event 1 PDF.pdfSCO Grp v. Novell Inc - Document No. 353National Participation - Perspective of the Association of Uganda Oil & Gas Service ProvidersInvestigation of Malaria Prevalence and Health Outcome in NigeriaSEC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Facilitating Payments)