Info

FCPA Compliance Report

Tom Fox has practiced law in Houston for 30 years and now brings you the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report. Learn the latest in anti-corruption and anti-bribery compliance and international transaction issues, as well as business solutions to compliance problems.
RSS Feed Subscribe in Apple Podcasts
FCPA Compliance Report
2018
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2017
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
March
February


2015
December


Categories

All Episodes
Archives
Categories
Now displaying: November, 2016
Nov 29, 2016

Show Notes

  1. Introduction
    1. What is the FAR
    2. What’s the differences with DFARs
    3. What types of companies should be concerned
    4. What are some examples of covered with these regs (eg. Ozone depleting substances, child labor, sanctions/debarment)
  2. Reporting requirements
  3. What sort of resources are available to help demonstrate compliance

  What is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

  • The purpose of the FAR is to provide uniform policies and procedures for acquisition of goods supplied to the US federal government. Among its guiding principles is to have an acquisition system that satisfies customer's needs in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness; minimize administrative operating costs; conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and fulfill other public policy objectives
  • At over 1,800 pages in its entirety, is a substantial and complex set of rules governing the procurement of all goods and services required by the U.S. Government
  • When a federal government agency issues a contract, it will specify the applicable FAR provisions, which may be numerous. In order to be awarded a contract, a company must either comply with the provisions, demonstrate that it will be able to comply with them once awarded, or claim an exemption from them (eg. Small business exemption)
  • All government issued contracts include any number of the FAR and/or DFARS clauses either in full text or by reference requiring the company issued the contract to demonstrate compliance to the requirements
  • Failure to comply with the requirements of FAR and DFARS may result in loss of contract or monetary fines

 What’s the differences with DFARs?

  • Updated in July of this year the DFARS is one of the best-known examples of an agency supplement to the FAR addressing further reporting requirements put forth by the Department of Defense
  • This supplement covers contracts with the office of the secretary of defense, branches of the military, and other defense agencies
  • In order to be in the running for one of these highly lucrative defense contracts, companies need to stay on top of the latest changes to DFARS and ensure their contracts, systems and processes reflect these requirements

 What types of companies should be concerned?

  • Companies that conduct their business with agencies of the US govt including defense contractors
  • Additionally those companies selling to organizations which conduct business with agencies of the US govt. will likely be asked to supply certain documentation to support their customer’s ability to demonstrate compliance
  • Winning a federal or defense contract means complying with laws and regulations unique to those doing business with the government. Many new contractors as well as their suppliers, are often unprepared for the rules and regulations they must follow and demonstrate, which can lead to costly errors and potential legal problems

 Why should they be concerned? 

  • Depending on the type of end product provided to government agencies, different types of concerns or risk becomes a focus in such situations

Reporting Requirements

  • In many cases sufficient screening, policy reviews and certification collection and validation will allow reporting companies to demonstrate compliance. But the issue isn’t necessarily what you have to collect to demonstrate compliance to meet FAR requirements (or report to customers which are obligated to) it’s how you do it.  Having a platform which can automate the data collection process as well as act as a repository is where most struggle…
  • What sort of resources are available to help me demonstrate compliance with these regs
    • We’ve created workflows to meet 48 of the specific FARs/DFARS supplier reviews and data collection processes
Nov 21, 2016

This episode is dedicated exclusively to where FCPA enforcement, SEC enforcement, the compliance profession and compliance programs may be headed under the Trump administration, with a dash of anti-trust enforcement and EU Privacy Shield.

  • Mike Volkov about where FCPA enforcement may be headed. We explore how FCPA cases are largely self-funded through company internal investigations which are turned over to the Justice Department. Volkov discusses funding and resources for the Department’s FCPA unit. He also touches on potential (or the lack thereof) of anti-trust enforcement going forward.

For Volkov’s post, “A New Administration: A New FCPA Enforcement Regime?” click here.

  • Matt Kelly leads a discussion on how the new administration may view the SEC going forward. He considers the announced resignation of SEC Chairman Mary Jo White and the appointment (and dismissal) of Kevin O’Connor from Trump’s transition team. Matt explains how Trump’s attacks on Dodd-Frank focus on easing rules for capital formation not on the whistleblower provisions or other sections more applicable to the compliance profession.

For Kelly’s posts, see the following:

  1. Five Post-Election Points for CCOs to Ponder;
  2. It’s Starting: Disclosure of ‘Trump Risk’;
  3. Compliance in the Trump Era, Part I: The SEC;
  4. A CCO Voice Emerges in Trump World; and
  5. Well That Didn’t Last Long
  • Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion of the view from across the pond on where anti-corruption compliance enforcement may be headed after the election. He considers what the effects might be on the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO)? He also considers what the effect of the Trump election might mean for EU and UK privacy advocates, privacy protections and privacy legislation going forward. He also discusses issues surrounding Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield faces a number of challenges from regulators, courts and possibly from the European Parliament.  A new Trump administration is likely to make Privacy Shield’s future even more uncertain.  Jonathan’s thoughts on Privacy Shield are here - http://www.corderycompliance.com/privacy-shield-faqs/

For Armstrong’s blog post, “What does the election of President Trump mean for compliance?” click here.

  • Jay Rosen takes us through how all of this may well be much ado about nothing. He points out that the compliance profession will continue to thrive as it becomes more as a part of business processes. From his role as ‘Mr. Translations’ he explains that companies have been moving compliance into the fabric of organizations and that by doing so, companies become better run, more efficient and more profitable.

For Rosen’s blog post (and great riff off of The Clash) “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”, click here.

  • For my blogs posts on these topics see the following:
  1. FCPA Enforcement Going Forward in the Trump Administration;
  2. Compliance Isn’t Going Away (and neither should you), Part I;
  3. Compliance Isn’t Going Away (and neither should you), Part II;
  4. Compliance Isn’t Going Away (and neither should you), Part III; and
  5. Why FCPA Compliance Makes America Great.

The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:

  • Jay Rosen (Mr. Translations) – Jay is Vice President of Legal & Corporate Language Solutions at United Language Group. Rosen can be reached at rosen@ulgroup.com.
  • Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and owner of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
  • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of the noted Compliance Week Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
  • Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com.

For additional reading check out some of the following posts:

  1. Over at the Global Anti-Corruption Blog, Matt Stephenson talks about his nightmare version of a Trump administration for the global fight against anti-corruption.
  2. NYT Times DealB%K- on what DOJ and SEC enforcement may look like going forward.
  3. Sam Rubenfeld at the WSJ Corruptions Currents online site,a collection of some thoughts on what a Trump administration may mean for compliance.
  4. SCCE CEO Roy Snell tells us how he has seen it all before and advises everyone to wait a year and see what happens.
  5. Finally, in an uncharacteristically restrained post, the FCPA Professor advises everyone to take a deep breath, when it comes to FCPA enforcement under a Trump administration.
  6. Mike Scher advises President-Elect Trump to consider compliance officers.
Nov 10, 2016

Show Notes for Episode 1

At the SCCE 2016 Compliance and Ethics Institute, I sat down with four of the top compliance commentators in the field for my first roundtable-style podcast. It was so successful that I persuaded the gang to come back together every couple of weeks for a formal podcast, which is entitled Everything Compliance. The premier episode is available for your listening pleasure today. I will post a new episode every two weeks.

I host these four well-known compliance practitioners and commentators:

  • Jay Rosen (Mr. Translations) - Jay is Vice President of Legal & Corporate Language Solutions at United Language Group. Rosen can be reached at rosen@ulgroup.com.
  • Mike Volkov - One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and owner of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
  • Matt Kelly - Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of the noted Compliance Week Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
  • Jonathan Armstrong - Rounding out is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery Compliance Limited in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com.

The format is a roundtable discussion where I throw out a question to one commentator to lead the discussion. From that starting point we will all join in. I also include an “On My Mind” segment where each participant discusses what is on the forefront of their mind. This podcast is longer than my others, coming in at around 60 minutes, which allows us to explore the week’s issues in depth.

In the inaugural episode we discuss the following subjects:

  1. Mike Volkov leads a discussion of the unintended consequences of the Yates Memo/Pilot Program for internal investigations. We explore the issue of “de-confliction” where the government asks a company to halt its own internal investigation for the government to be the first to interview witnesses. We explore de-confliction in the context of a requirement of cooperation to gain the benefits of the pilot program and how such a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) could lead companies to be unable to disclose to other agencies or to shareholders and keep a Board in the dark about the alleged wrongdoing. What does this mean for the company and the internal investigator?

For Volkov’s post on conflicts of interest (COI) in internal investigations after the Yates Memo, click here.

  1. Matt Kelly leads a discussion on compliance and corporate governance. We explore the issue of compliance being involved in issues around pricing and sales in companies like Valeant and Wells Fargo. We discuss the role of compliance in areas outside of strict legal compliance but may move towards reputational risk, going into such areas as the new revenue recognition standards and executive compensation.

For Kelly’s blog post on the intersection of CEO pay and Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs), click here.

  1. Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion of funding and the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), in the context of the recent announcement that the SFO has received additional or supplemental funding to investigate Unaoil. Why does the SFO need supplemental funding and how does it obtain it? What does all of this mean for the continued existence of the SFO in light of a former critic now being PM? Finally, Armstrong ties all of this into Brexit, his recent interview of Max Schrems and issues surrounding Privacy Shield.

For Armstrong’s interview with Max Schrems, click here and Cordery’s FAQs on Privacy Shield, click here.

  1. Jay Rosen takes us through the compliance conference scene. For those of you who are avid attenders of the various conferences, he discusses some of the key differences in the types observed, such as the nuts and bolts types (SCCE) and others which focus more on commentary (FCPA Blog NYC Conference). He discusses the relative strengths of each and how a compliance professional should think about selecting one or more to attend. He ends with his thoughts on why compliance certification is a plus (or minus).

For Rosen’s blog post Designing Your 2017 Ethics, Compliance & FCPA Conference Schedule, click here.

This new podcast Everything Compliance joins the four other podcasts I have on different aspects of compliance. The original FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report focuses on the nuts and bolts of compliance. Unfair and Unbalanced - is a podcast I do with SCCE CEO Roy Snell. In it we focus on wide ranging issues for the compliance profession. Compliance into the Weeds - is a podcast I do with Matt Kelly where we take a deep dive into the weeds of a compliance issue, typically technology, internal controls or GRC. We both indulge our inner geekiness in this podcast. Jay Rosen and I wrap up each week in FCPA, compliance and ethics with This Week in FCPA. All of these podcasts are available to you on my site, FCPAcompliancereport.comand are available on iTunes under the same name.

1