Whose deal is it?

Guardian:

Political moves are being floated which would extricate the arms company BAE from corruption investigations in the US, in return for a financial settlement without admission of liability. According to senior sources close to the firm, such a deal is not currently on offer in Washington, and BAE yesterday issued a "flat denial" that it had approached the US authorities.

Such a deal would be highly attractive to the British government and the arms company, according to informed sources. BAE needs a clean sheet in the US, where it is making more sales and is considering appointing an American chief executive.

But a deal would involve the Department of Justice in Washington agreeing not to disclose any evidence of corruption in BAE's sales to Saudi Arabia. BAE, which has always denied wrongdoing, said yesterday: "There has been no such approach by BAE Systems to the Department of Justice and any suggestion that there has is untrue, inaccurate and misleading."

...

Just reading between the lines it appears the British government has put this deal on the table and neither the US or BAE has accepted it yet. The US does have a history of deals where the accused neither admits or denies guilt but pays a huge fine and promises never to do what ever it will not admit or deny. This has been a favorite of the SEC.

I recall dealing with such a company one time in a transaction, and in an interrogatory requested that the admit or deny each of the allegations in the SEC complaint. They suddenly lost interest in the transaction.