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
November
October
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: May, 2018
May 31, 2018

In this episode, Matt Kelly and I take a deep dive into the travails of Roseanne, her television network ABC and compliance over her vile and racist tweet comparing Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett to an ape. Immediately recognizing this is not a free speech issue, we consider the corporate response in light of corporate ethics, values and priorities. Matt wrote a great blog post on the topic, cited below. 

We consider how social media has not only changed the acceleration of negative events and reputational damage but how companies must balance some quite sensitive and important interests to make the right call on their response. We consider the response of ABC and recently Starbucks over its racial issues and contrast the approach of United Airlines when a passenger was literally dragged off a plane, while holding a confirmed ticket. In today’s age of the social media accelerant, this is one podcast you cannot afford to miss.    

Matt Kelly’s piece Roseanne, Corporate Priorities, and Social Media

May 30, 2018

One of the challenges many compliance practitioners face when they move up in their careers is to move from tactical to strategic thinking. It is a requirement for any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) to be able to think strategically as well as tactically but as you move up the corporate ladder, the strategic becomes more important. Strategic thinking is not something taught in law schools and in most business programs. Fortunately I came across a blog post on SpinSucks entitled, “Strategic Thinking in PR” by Gini Dietrich which laid out six steps you can take to improve this key part of your leadership toolkit. The six steps are as follows: (1) Anticipate; (2) Think critically; (3) Interpret; (4) Decide; (5) align; and (6) Learn.

Before we get to those six steps, we should consider why it is so difficult to make the move from tactical expert to strategic thinker. Dietrich believes it is for a couple of reasons. First, we tend to not to really define strategy and that vagueness allows it means different things to different people. Secondly there are not very many people can teach it adequately, which means not very many people understand it.

May 29, 2018

One new and different item was laid out in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, supplementing the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program from the 2012 FCPA Guidance. This was the performance of a root cause analysis for any compliance violation which may led to a self-disclosure or enforcement action. Under Prong 1-Analysis and Remediation of UnderlyingMisconduct, the Evaluation states: 

What is the company’s root cause analysis of the misconduct at issue? What systemic issues were identified? Who in the company was involved in making the analysis?  

Were there prior opportunities to detect the misconduct in question, such as audit reports identifying relevant control failures or allegations, complaints, or investigations involving similar issues? What is the company’s analysis of why such opportunities were missed?  

The new Department of Justice (DOJ) FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy brought forward this requirement for a root cause analysis with the following language: 

Demonstration of thorough analysis of causes of underlying conduct (i.e., a root cause analysis) and, where appropriate, remediation to address the root causes. 

Initially you need to understand the difference between a root cause analysis and a risk assessment. Obviously, you would perform a root cause analysis after an incident occurs so to that extent it is reactive rather than proactive. The site Thwink.org has defined root cause analysis as:

The purpose of root cause analysis is to strike at the root of a problem by finding and resolving its root causes. Root cause analysis is a class of problem solving methods aimed at identifying the root causes of problems or events. ... The practice of root cause analysis is predicated on the belief that problems are best solved by attempting to correct or eliminate root causes, as opposed to merely addressing the immediately obvious symptoms.

Well known fraud investigator Jonathan Marks, in an interview with the author, defines a root cause analysis “is a research based approach to identifying the bottom line reason of a problem or an issue; with the root cause, not the proximate cause the root cause representing the source of the problem.” He contrasted this definition with that of a risk assessment which he said “is something performed on a proactive basis based on various facts. A root cause analysis analyzes a problem that (hopefully) was previously identified through a risk assessment.”

May 29, 2018

In the context of mergers and acquisitions under the FCPA, in a near perfect example of the Howard Sklar maxim that ‘water is wet” the 2012 FCPA Guidance stated “mergers and acquisitions present both risks and opportunities. A company that does not perform adequate FCPA due diligence prior to a merger or acquisition may face both legal and business risks. Perhaps most commonly, inadequate due diligence can allow a course of bribery to continue—with all the attendant harms to a business’s profitability and reputation, as well as potential civil and criminal liability.” While most compliance practitioners have been long aware of the requirement in the post-acquisition context, the 2012 FCPA Guidance focused many compliance practitioners for the need to engage in robust pre-acquisition due diligence.

Under Prong 11. Mergers and Acquisitions; there were a series of queries which tied together how pre-acquisition due diligence and post-acquisition integration. Due Diligence ProcessWas the misconduct or the risk of misconduct identified during due diligence? Who conducted the risk review for the acquired/merged entities and how was it done? What has been the M&A due diligence process generally? 

The pre-acquisition process was then tied to post-acquisition with the following: Process Connecting Due Diligence to ImplementationWhat has been the company’s process for tracking and remediating misconduct or misconduct risks identified during the due diligence process? What has been the company’s process for implementing compliance policies and procedures at new entities? 

May 29, 2018

Hallmark Nine of Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as articulated in the 2012 FCPA Guidance, states: "a good compliance program should constantly evolve."

Keeping track of external and internal events which may cause change to business process, policies and procedures. Some examples are new laws applicable to your business organization and internal events which drive changes within a company (i.e., a company reorganization or major acquisition). 

Continuous improvement requires that you not only audit but also monitor whether employees are staying with the compliance program. In addition to the language set out in the 2012 FCPA Guidance, two of the seven compliance elements in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines call for companies to monitor, audit, and respond quickly to allegations of misconduct. These three activities are key components enforcement officials look for when determining whether companies maintain adequate oversight of their compliance programs. 

The 2012 FCPA Guidance made clear that each company should assess and manage its risks. It specifically noted that small and medium-size enterprises likely will have different risk profiles and therefore different attendant compliance programs than large multi-national corporations. Moreover, this is something that the DOJ and SEC consider when evaluating a company’s compliance program in any FCPA investigation. This is why a “check the box” approach is not only disfavored by the DOJ, but, at the end of the day, it is also ineffectual. It is because each compliance program should be tailored to the enterprise’s own specific needs, risks, and challenges. 

One tool that is extremely useful in the continuous improvement cycle, yet is often misused or misunderstood, is ongoing monitoring. This can come from the confusion about the differences between monitoring and auditing. Monitoring is a commitment to reviewing and detecting compliance variances in real time and then reacting quickly to remediate them. A primary goal of monitoring is to identify and address gaps in your program on a regular and consistent basis across a wide spectrum of data and information.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here.

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

May 29, 2018

The call, e-mail or tip comes into your office; an employee reports suspicious activity somewhere across the globe. That activity might well turn into a FCPA issue for your company. As the CCO, it will be up to you to begin the process which will determine, in many instances, how the company will respond going forward. 

This scenario was driven home in a FCPA enforcement action brought by the SECin July 2015 involving Mead Johnson Nutrition Company. In that case, the company performed two internal investigations into allegations that its Chinese business unit was engaged in conduct which violated the FCPA. Unfortunately, the first investigation, performed in 2011, did not turn up any evidence of FCPA violations. It was not until 2013, when the SEC made an inquiry to the company that it performed an adequate internal investigation which uncovered FCPA violations.

Your company should have a detailed written procedure for handling any complaint or allegation of bribery or corruption, regardless of the means through which it is communicated. The mechanism could include the internal company hotline, anonymous tips, or a report directly from the business unit involved. You can make the decision on whether or not to investigate with consultation with other groups such as the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors or the Legal Department. The head of the business unit in which the claim arose may also be notified that an allegation has been made and that the Compliance Department will be handling the matter on a go-forward basis. Through the use of such a detailed written procedure, you can work to ensure there is complete transparency on the rights and obligations of all parties, once an allegation is made. This allows the Compliance Department to have not only the flexibility but also the responsibility to deal with such matters, from which it can best assess and then decide on how to manage the matter.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here.

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

May 29, 2018

As every compliance practitioner is well aware, third-parties still present the highest risk under the FCPA. The Department of Justice Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs devotes an entire prong to third-party management. It begins with the following: 

How has the company’s third-party management process corresponded to the nature and level of the enterprise risk identified by the company? How has this process been integrated into the relevant procurement and vendor management processes? 

What was the business rationale for the use of the third-parties in question? What mechanisms have existed to ensure that the contract terms specifically described the services to be performed, that the payment terms are appropriate, that the described contractual work is performed, and that compensation is commensurate with the services rendered?  

This first set of queries clearly specifies that the DOJ expects an integrated approach that is operationalized throughout the company. This means your compliance process must have a process for the full life cycle of third-party risk management. There are five steps in the life cycle of third-party risk management, which will fulfill the DOJ requirements laid out in the 10 Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program and the Evaluation. They are:   

  1. Business Justification and Business Sponsor;
  2. Questionnaire to Third-party;
  3. Due Diligence on Third-party;
  4. Compliance Terms and Conditions, including payment terms; and
  5. Management and Oversight of Third-parties After Contract Signing.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here.

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.


May 29, 2018
  1. Financial Incentives for Compliance

One of the areas that many companies have not paid as much attention to in their compliance programs is compensation. However, the DOJ and SEC have long made clear that they view monetary structure for compensation, rewarding those employees who do business in compliance with their employer’s compliance program, as one of the ways to reinforce the compliance program and the message of compliance. As far back as 2004, former SEC Director of Enforcement Stephen M. Cutler noted that integrity, ethics and compliance needed to be part of promotion, compensation and evaluation processes: “At the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority, is to reward it.” 

The 2012 FCPA Guidance stated the “DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. These incentives can take many forms such as personnel evaluations and promotions, rewards for improving and developing a company’s compliance pro­gram, and rewards for ethics and compliance leadership.”

2. The Fair Process Doctrine

One of the areas which Human Resources can operationalize your compliance program is to ensure that discipline is handed out fairly across an organization and to reward those employees who integrate such ethical and compliant behavior into their individual work practices going forward. In addition to providing a financial incentive for ethical behavior, it also provides a sense of institutionalobjectivity. Institutional objectivity comes from procedural fairness and is one of the things that will bring credibility to your compliance program. 

Today, that kind of objectivity is called the Fair Process Doctrine, which recognizes that there are fair procedures, not arbitrary ones, in processes involving rights. Considerable research has shown that people are more willing to accept negative, unfavorable, and non-preferred outcomes when they are arrived at by processes and procedures that are perceived as fair. As you incorporate the Fair Process Doctrine in your compliance program, there are three key areas to focus on.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here.

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.


May 25, 2018

With The Complete Compliance Handbooksitting at the top of the rankings in its first week of sales, Jay Rosen and myself take a look at some of the top compliance stories over the past week. 

  1. Tom’s new book The Complete Compliance Handbookwas released on Monday May 21. It is No. 1 in Amazon’s New Releases in Business Ethics. Available on Amazon.com. Purchase an autographed copy here. It is reviewed in the FCPA Blog, Radical Complianceand Corruption, Crime and Compliance.
  2. GDPR is live. Are you ready? Check out Tom’s blog postand white paper. For yet more on GDPR see the podcast series Countdown to GDPR: Episode 1 -Introduction; Episode 2 - The Role of the Data Protection Officer; Episode 3 - Policies and Procedures; Episode 4 - DPIAs; Episode 5 - Vendors in GDPR Compliance; Episode 6 - GDPR for Communications Professionals; Episode 7 - Data Security and Data Breachesand Episode 8 - Subject Access Requests
  3. Compliance Week 2018 is in the books. We review some of our highlights.
  4. The SFO brings new charges in the Unaoil matter. Dick Cassin reports in the FCPA Blog. Mara Lemos Stein reports in the WSJ Risk and Compliance Review.
  5. Matt Kelly considers doing compliance in the midst of corporate downturns, in Radical Compliance.
  6. DOJ announces two new indictments in the Rolls Royce bribery case. Dick Cassin reports in the FCPA Blog.
  7. Doing business with Pemex, it now requires contractors to have compliance program. Luis Corres reports in the FCPA Blog.
  8. What is nudging in compliance? Ben DiPietro reports in the WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal.
  9. The DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program still resonates with complaince practitioners to help think through compliance programs and issues. Sascha Mastussak considers it in the SCCE Blog.
  10. Rockets take the lead in their series with Golden State 3-21 and are heading out west. Celtics head back to Cleveland up 3-2.
  11. The Everything Compliance gang is back in the Cohen and Friends edition. Check it out here.

For more information on how an independent monitor can help improve your company’s ethics and compliance program, visit our sponsor Affiliated Monitors at www.affiliatedmonitors.com.

May 24, 2018

This week the gang sticks a roundtable Q&A, with a focus on the Michael Cohen imbroglio. Jay Rosen considers the lessons to be learned in hiring third-parties. Matt Kelly considers issue from the COSO angle: the control environment v. compliance activities. Mike Volkov weighs in search warrant and Bank Secrecy Act perspective. Jonathan Armstrong adds his own unique British perspective (IE., snark) to the conversation. In addition to the commentary we have the following rants:

  1. Matt gives a shout out to Preet Bharara to encourage him to run for NY state Attorney General. 
  1. Mike rants on CEO and C-Suite involvement in more and more corporate scandals.
  1. Jonathan rants on inane GDPR opt-in emails, which hopefully will end when GDPR goes live May 25.

   4. Jay rants on the lack of respect for his beloved Red Sox.

  1. Jim Moore steps in for a special guest rant on the Boston/Cleveland series officiating.
May 23, 2018

Today we consider Subject Access Requests (SARs) under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As always, I am joined in this exploration by Jonathan Armstrong, a partner in Cordery Compliance in London. SARs may turn out to be one of the most onerous, costly and time-consuming issues for companies after the go-live of GDPR on May 25, 2018. Of all the requirements of GDPR, this may be the single one which companies are least prepared for going into the new regime.

SARs currently exist for all countries in the European Union (EU), in most jurisdictions companies can currently charge a small fee for them. Although the fees are generally fairly trivial, it does put off many applicants. However, post-GDPR Armstrong believes that we are “going to see a significant increase in the number of subject access requests that people will make”. Moreover, SARs can be very difficult and time consuming to fulfill. He noted that some of Cordery’s clients estimate they spend between 100 and 300 hours per SAR. But it is not simply the detailed work needed to fulfill the SAR but a company must also redact out the data on other people.

Armstrong provided an example for a SAR for emails sent to an individual. A SAR might come in for emails being sent to Mr. Jones. While you might be able to do a word search for Mr. Jones and find all emails relating to him, it could be that 10 other people were copied in on emails to/from Mr. Jones. You are required to redact out the details of those 10 people.

Armstrong further refined the example by adding the factor that the email related to performance appraisal and a manager is communicating how their seven direct reports accomplished in that performance appraisals for the year. In responding to the SAR, a company must disclose the information on the one individual who has made the request but redact the information on the others. He words like “he or she” must be reviewed as they can provide personal identifiable information such as a person’s sex. There is also information such as cell phone details, which might be found on the footers of emails that would identify individuals. This information must be redacted.  

Obviously, this example is antithetical to the way in which US companies not only do business but the manner in which they try to avoid releasing any information to the public. However, Armstrong believes this is very important in the EU and will be going forward in the UK, post Brexit. He even pointed by to Max Schrems and the original litigation which brought down Safe Harbor. It could also be that EU and UK citizens might make SARs and then use the US corporate responses as the basis for class action type lawsuits. All of this mean US companies must not only take SARs seriously but have a protocol in place for handling them.

Once again, the key is to have policies and procedures in place to deal with SARs. He said it all begins with training so employees understand what a SAR might look like when it comes in because there is no one prescribed form. Also remember that a SAR can be made orally as well. From there you will need a process for escalating the SAR to the correct person or department. The person who will respond is critical not only for the reasons detailed above in appropriately responding to the SAR  but as Armstrong noted, “there needs to be a more highly trained person, who can diagnose whether that request is validly made and deal with it.” Such a trained and designated person should not pass up the opportunity to speak to the person making the SAR, as “sometimes there is a rumbling of discontent behind a SAR. It might be that you could  resolve the underlying issue, avoid the entire SAR” by handling whatever the issue is which led to the SAR in the first place. 

May 21, 2018

In this episode I visit with Nate Lankford, member at Miller & Chevalier on the firm’s FCPA Spring Review 2018. The quarterly Miller review is also an excellent resource for any FCPA or compliance practitioner, chocked full of statistics on enforcement actions, legal and compliance analysis, reports on international FCPA developments and commentary. It has always been a ‘Must Read’ review for any compliance professional. The FCPA Spring Review 2018 continues this trend.

In this episode, we consider some of the following issues:

  • What if anything, can be gleaned from the now one plus year of enforcement under the Trump Administration and Sessions-led Justice Department.
  • Has there been an untick in declinations?
  • Any uptick in individual prosecutions?
  • What are some of the key points from the following enforcement actions: Elbit, Transportation Logistics and Kinross?
  • Some of the top international developments including: Canada Updates Anti-Corruption Law and Enforcement Tools; French Anti-Corruption Agency Issues First Official Guidelines and France Enters into Two More Bribery-Related Negotiation Resolutions; Airbus Payment in Germany
  • The Digital Realty Trust v. Somers decision at the US Supreme Court and its implications for companies and compliance practitioners.
  • What has been the response to the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy requirement for companies to prohibit software that generates but does not retain business records or communications.

A copy of the Miller & Chevalier FCPA Spring Review 2018 can be found here.

The quarterly Miller FCPA Review is a must read for any compliance professional. The Spring Review 2018 is no exception.

May 21, 2018

360 Degrees of Compliance Communications 

A 360-degree view of compliance is an effort to incorporate your compliance identity into a holistic approach so that compliance is in touch with and visible to your employees at all times. It is about creating a distinctive brand philosophy of compliance which is centered on your consumers. In other words, it helps a compliance practitioner to anticipate all the aspects of your employees needs around compliance your employees, who are the customers of your compliance program. This is especially true when compliance is either perceived as something that comes out of the home office or is perceived as the Land of No, largely inhabited by Dr. No. A 360-degree view of compliance gives you the opportunity to build a new brand image for your compliance program. 

The Use of Social Media in Compliance 

What is the message of compliance inside of a corporation and how it is distributed? In a compliance program, the largest portion of your consumers/customers are your employees. Social media presents some excellent mechanisms to communicate the message of compliance going forward. Many of the applications that we use in our personal communication are free or available at very low cost. Why not take advantage of them and use those same communication tools in your internal compliance marketing efforts going forward? 

What is Effective Compliance Training? 

Also raised in the Evaluation was the focus of your training programs, where the DOJ inquired into whether your training was “tailored” for the audience. The Evaluation, In Prong 6, Training and Communication, asked, in part: Risk-Based TrainingWhat training have employees in relevant control functions received? Has the company provided tailored training for high-risk and control employees that addressed the risks in the area where the misconduct occurred? What analysis has the company undertaken to determine who should be trained and on what subjects?  

The key going forward is that you have thoughtfully created your compliance training program. Not only in the design but who receives it, all coupled with backend determination of effectiveness. Finally, all of this must be documented. In Prong 6, Training and Communication, of the Evaluation it read, in part: 

Form/Content/Effectiveness of Training– Has the training been offered in the form and language appropriate for the intended audience? How has the company measured the effectiveness of the training? 

  1. Figure out what you want to measure. Before you ever train an employee, you should have a goal in mind. What actions do you want employees to take? What risks do you want them to avoid? In compliance training, you want them to avoid non-ethical and non-compliant actions that would lead to potential violations. Your goal is to train employees to follow your Code of Conduct and your compliance program policies and procedures so you avoid liability related to actions.
  2. Were employees satisfied with the training? What is their engagement? The next step is to get a sense of whether employees feel that the training you provided is relevant and targeted to their job. If it’s not targeted, employees will likely not be committed to changing risky behavior. One way to obtain such data is through a post-training survey. This should give you insight into determining if employees thought the training was beneficial and effective in answering their questions and concerns.
  3. Did employees actually learn anything? A critical part of any employee training is the assessment. You must know whether they actually learned anything during training. You can collect this data in a number of ways, but for compliance training, the best way is to measure pre- and post-training understanding over time. Basically, each time you train an employee, measure comprehension both before and after training.
  4. Are employees applying your training? A survey should be used to determine employee application and their implementation of the training topics. To do so, you must conduct surveys to understand whether they ceased engaging in certain risky behaviors or better yet understand how to conduct themselves in certain risky situations. These surveys can provide a good sense of whether the training has been effective.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

May 21, 2018

How to Perform a Risk Assessment 

One cannot really say enough about risk assessments in the context of an anti-corruption programs. Since at least 1999, in the Metcalf & Eddyenforcement action, the DOJ has said that risk assessment which measure the likelihood and severity of possible FCPA violations the manner in which you should direct your resources to manage these risks. The 2012 FCPA Guidance stated it succinctly when it said, “Assessment of risk is fundamental to developing a strong compliance program, and is another factor DOJ and SEC evaluate when assessing a company’s compliance program.” 

This language was supplemented in the 2017 in both the Evaluation and the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. Under Prong 4 of the Evaluation, Risk Assessments, the following issues were raised: Risk Management ProcessWhat methodology has the company used to identify, analyze, and address the particular risks it faced?Manifested RisksHow has the company’s risk assessment process accounted for manifested risks?In the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy it stated, “The effectiveness of the company’s risk assessment and the manner in which the company’s compliance program has been tailored based on that risk assessment”. 

What Should You Assess? 

  1. Geography-where does your Company do business.
  2. Interaction with types and levels of Governments.
  3. Industrial Sector of Operations.
  4. Involvement with Joint Ventures.
  5. Licenses and Permits in Operations.
  6. Degree of Government Oversight.
  7. Volume and Importance of Goods and Personnel Going Through Customs and Immigration. 

How Do You Evaluate a Risk Assessment? 

LIKELIHOOD

Likelihood Rating

Assessment

Evaluation Criteria

1

Almost Certain

High likely, this event is expected to occur

2

Likely

Strong possibility that an event will occur and there is sufficient historical incidence to support it

3

Possible

Event may occur at some point, typically there is a history to support it

4

Unlikely

Not expected but there’s a slight possibility that it may occur

5

Rare

Highly unlikely, but may occur in unique circumstances

 ‘Likelihood’ factors to consider: The existence of controls, written policies and procedures designed to mitigate risk capable of leadership to recognize and prevent a compliance breakdown; Compliance failures or near misses; Training and awareness programs.

PRIORITY

Priority Rating

Assessment

 Evaluation Criteria

1-2

Severe

Immediate action is required to address the risk, in addition to inclusion in training and education and audit and monitoring plans

3-4

High

Should be proactively monitored and mitigated through inclusion in training and education and audit and monitoring plans

5-7

Significant

8-14

Moderate

15-19

20-25

Low

Trivial

Risks at this level should be monitored but do not necessarily pose any serious threat to the organization at the present time.

Priority Rating: Product of ‘likelihood’ and significance ratings reflects the significance of particular risk universe. It is not a measure of compliance effectiveness or to compare efforts, controls or programs against peer groups. 

At Timken, the most significant risks with the greatest likelihood of occurring are deemed to be the priority risks. These “Severe” risks become the focus of the audit monitoring plan going forward. A variety of tools can be used to continuously monitoring risk going forward.  However, you should not forget the human factor. At Timken, one of the methods used by the compliance group to manage such risk is by providing employees with substantive training to guard against the most significant risks coming to pass and to keep the key messages fresh and top of mind. The company also produces a risk control summary that succinctly documents the nature of the risk and the actions taken to mitigate it.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

May 21, 2018

CCO Authority and Independence 

The role of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. In the 2012 FCPA Guidance, under Hallmark Three of the 10 Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, the focus was articulated by the title of the Hallmark, Oversight, Autonomy, and Resources. 

The DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, made the following query about the CCO position: Prong3. Autonomy and Resources  

Stature– How has the compliance function compared with other strategic functions in the company in terms of stature, compensation levels, rank/title, reporting line, resources, and access to key decision-makers? What has been the turnover rate for compliance and relevant control function personnel? What role has compliance played in the company’s strategic and operational decisions?  

Autonomy Have the compliance and relevant control functions had direct reporting lines to anyone on the board of directors? How often do they meet with the board of directors? Are members of the senior management present for these meetings? Who reviewed the performance of the compliance function and what was the review process? Who has determined compensation/bonuses/raises/hiring/termination of compliance officers? Do the compliance and relevant control personnel in the field have reporting lines to headquarters? If not, how has the company ensured their independence?  

In the Policy, the DOJ laid out additional factors around CCO authority:  

  1. The quality and experience of the personnel involved in compliance, such that they can understand and identify the transactions and activities that pose a potential risk;
  2. The authority and independence of the compliance function and the availability of compliance expertise to the board;
  3. The compensation and promotion of the personnel involved in compliance, in view of their role, responsibilities, performance, and other appropriate factors; and
  4. The reporting structure of any compliance personnel employed or contracted by the company.  

This new language would seem to signal the death knell for the dual GC/CCO role. 

Compliance Function in an Organization 

Autonomy and Resources 

Compliance Role – Was compliance involved in training and decisions relevant to the misconduct? Did the compliance or relevant control functions (e.g., Legal, Finance, or Audit) ever raise a concern in the area where the misconduct occurred?  

Empowerment – Have there been specific instances where compliance raised concerns or objections in the area in which the wrongdoing occurred? How has the company responded to such compliance concerns? Have there been specific transactions or deals that were stopped, modified, or more closely examined as a result of compliance concerns?  

Funding and Resources – How have decisions been made about the allocation of personnel and resources for the compliance and relevant control functions in light of the company’s risk profile? Have there been times when requests for resources by the compliance and relevant control functions have been denied? If so, how have those decisions been made?  

The Evaluation added one new set of queries based upon the evolution of corporate compliance programs since 2012. 

Funding and Resources 

You will now have to justify your corporate compliance spend. 

You now have to justify your compliance budget request denials. 

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

 

May 21, 2018

The Code of Conduct 

What is the value of having a Code of Conduct? 

“First and foremost, the standards of conduct demonstrate the organization’s overarching ethical attitude and its “system-wide” emphasis on compliance and ethics with all applicable laws and regulations.” They go on to state, “The code is meant for all employees and all representatives of the organization, not just those most actively involved in known compliance and ethics issues. This includes management, vendors, suppliers, and independent contractors, which are frequently overlooked groups.” From the board of directors to volunteers, the authors believe that “everyone must receive, read, understand, and agree to abide by the standards of the Code of Conduct.” 

The substance of your Code of Conduct should be tailored to your company’s culture, and to its industry and corporate identity. It should provide a mechanism by which employees who are trying to do the right thing in the compliance and business ethics arena can do so. The Code of Conduct can be used as a basis for employee review and evaluation. It should certainly be invoked if there is a violation. Your company’s Code of Conduct should emphasize it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, wherever it does business. The Code needs to be written in plain English and translated into other languages as necessary so that all applicable persons can understand it. 

Policies and Procedures

There are numerous reasons to put some serious work into your compliance policies and procedures. They are certainly a first line of defense when the government comes knocking. The 2012 FCPA Guidance made clear that “Whether a company has policies and procedures that outline responsibilities for compliance within the company, detail proper internal controls, auditing practices, and documentation policies, and set forth disciplinary procedures will also be considered by DOJ and SEC.” 

The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs builds up on the requirements articulated in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. Under Prong 4, Policies and Procedures, there are two parts: Design and Accessibility and Operational Integration. This Part A has the following components. 

Designing Compliance Policies and ProceduresWhat has been the company’s process for designing and implementing new policies and procedures? Who has been involved in the design of policies and procedures? Have business units/divisions been consulted prior to rolling them out? 

 Applicable Policies and ProceduresHas the company had policies and procedures that prohibited the misconduct? How has the company assessed whether these policies and procedures have been effectively implemented? How have the functions that had ownership of these policies and procedures been held accountable for supervisory oversight? The Evaluation then goes on to ask about both accessibility and effectiveness of the compliance policies and procedures by stating, 

The specific written policies and procedures required for a best practicescompliance program are well known and long established. The 2012 FCPA Guidance stated, “Among the risks that a company may need to address include the nature and extent of transactions with foreign governments, including payments to foreign officials; use of third parties; gifts, travel, and entertainment expenses; charitable and political donations; and facilitating and expediting payments.” Policies help form the basis of expectation for conduct in your company. Procedures are the documents that implement these standards of conduct. 

Internal Controls and Compliance

What specifically are internal controls in a compliance program? Internal controls are not only the foundation of a company but are also the foundation of any effective anti-corruption compliance program. 

The DOJ and SEC, in the 2012 FCPA Guidance, stated, “Internal controls over financial reporting are the processes used by compa­nies to provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliabil­ity of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. Moreover, “the design of a company’s internal controls must take into account the operational realities and risks attendant to the company’s business, such as: the nature of its products or services; how the products or services get to market; the nature of its work force; the degree of regulation; the extent of its government interaction; and the degree to which it has operations in countries with a high risk of corruption.” 

This was supplemented in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs with the following:

ControlsWhat controls failed or were absent that would have detected or prevented the misconduct? Are they there now? 

The whole concept of internal controls is that companies need to focus on where the risks are, whether they be compliance risks or other, and they need to allocate their limited resources to putting controls in place that address those risks, and in the compliance world, of course, your two big risks are the assets or resources of a company. Not just cash but inventory, fixed assets etc., being used to pay a bribe, and then the second big element would be diversion of company assets, such as unauthorized sales discounts or receivables and write offs, which are used to pay a bribe. 

There are four significant controls that I would suggest the compliance practitioner implement initially. They are: (1) Delegation of Authority (DOA); (2) Maintenance of the vendor master file; (3) Contracts with third parties; and (4) Movement of cash / currency.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here.

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

May 21, 2018

Leadership’s Conduct at the Top 

Under the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, Prong 2, it states: 

Senior and Middle Management

Conduct at the Top – How have senior leaders, through their words and actions, encouraged or discouraged the type of misconduct in question? What concrete actions have they taken to demonstrate leadership in the company’s compliance and remediation efforts? How does the company monitor its senior leadership’s behavior? How has senior leadership modelled proper behavior to subordinates? 

Moving Compliance Tone Down Through an Organization 

  • Muddle in the middle
  • Tone at the bottom 

The Board and Operationalizing Compliance 

What is the role of a company’s Board of Director as laid out in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs?In an area of inquiry entitled, “Oversight” the DOJ asked three basic questions. Under Prong 2, Senior and Middle Management, the Evaluation posed three questions directed at the Board, OversightWhat compliance expertise has been available on the board of directors? Have the board of directors and/or external auditors held executive or private sessions with the compliance and control functions? What types of information have the board of directors and senior management examined in their exercise of oversight in the area in which the misconduct occurred?  

  • Compliance Committee on the Board
  • Compliance Expertise on the Board
  • Compliance Oversight by the Board

There are some specific areas of inquiry by a Board of Directors around the compliance. I have adapted 20 questions which reflect the oversight role of directors. These are questions which the Board should ask of both senior management and the Board itself. The questions are not intended to be an exact checklist, but rather a way to provide insight and stimulate discussion on the topic of compliance. The questions provide directors with a basis for critically assessing the answers they get and digging deeper as necessary.

To purchase a copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook on Amazon.com click here

To purchase an autographed copy of The Complete Compliance Handbook from the author click here.

 

May 18, 2018

With Uncle Duke joining the compliance debate around Michael Cohen, Jay Rosen and myself take a look at some of the top compliance stories over the past week.

  1. The fallout from the Michael Cohen revelations continue to explode across the compliance universe. Matt Kelly considers it from a COSO perspective in Radical Compliance, Tom and Matt podcast have another podcast about it on Compliance into the Weeds, Tom channels his inner Hunter S. Thompson for a three part series, Part I-the Start, Part II-Full Gonzo and Part III-Uncle Duke. The NYT reportsthat the Novartis GC loses his job over the scandal.
  2. Rod Rosenstein announced a new “anti-piling on” policy. What does it mean for FCPA enforcement? Lara A. Covington and Michael E. Hantman, writing in the FCPA Blog, point out the strings attached and potential rewards. Tom considers the new policy (channeling Tom Wolfe) here.  For the full text of Rosenstein’s remarks see here.
  3. Writing in forbes.com Dan Pontefract says we need ethics professionals more than ever.
  4. The purveyors of the most excellent Global Anti-Corruption Blog, Rick Messick and Matthew Stepenson both post articles decaptitating the arguments against transparency into shell corporations. Rick’s piece is here. Matthew’s piece is here.
  5. What is it like to negotiate a FCPA/Bribery Act resolution, while heading up the remediation. Phoebe Seers reports on how the Innospec GC/CCO handled it in Mlex.
  6. Trump tweets out to protect Chinese jobs in the ZTE sanctions case. What are the implications? Sam Rubenfeld takes a look at the landscape in WSK Risk & Compliance Journal.
  7. Businesses are finding value in combining sustanibility and compliance. Ben DiPietro reports in the WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal.
  8. Cybersecurity whistleblowers are becoming increasingly important to the SEC and in the corporate world. Henry Cutter reports in the WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal.
  9. Rockets square their series with Golden State 1-1 and are heading out west. Celtics head to Cleveland up 2-0.
  10. Tom announces publication date of his next book, The Complete Compliance Handbook,which will be available on May 21, 2018 on Amazon.com. If you are attending Compliance Week 2018, Tom is have a book signing party on Monday, from 2:15 to 2:45. Come by and pick up an autographed copy.

For more information on how an independent monitor can help improve your company’s ethics and compliance program, visit our sponsor Affiliated Monitors at www.affiliatedmonitors.com.

May 17, 2018

In this episode, Jonathan Armstrong and I discuss the backbone of the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is data protection and the ancillary topic of responding to data breaches. GDPR introduces significant changes on the mandatory reporting of data breaches, including both a requirement for reporting to the relevant regulator(s) and communication to those affected by any data breach.

May 16, 2018

In this episode, Matt Kelly and I take a continued deep dive into the travails of Michael Cohen, AT&T and Novartis for their hire of Cohen’s company Essential Consulting. After last week’s emergency podcast on the topic, we take a more measured discussion of the latest series of allegations. We discuss the PR disaster which has beset both AT&T and Novartis and where things may be headed.  

For more reading on Cohen, Essential Consulting, AT&T and Novartis, see

Tom’s three piece series:

Michael Cohen, 3rd Party Consultants and Hunter S. Thompson: Part I

Michael Cohen, 3rd Party Consultants and Hunter S. Thompson: Part II, Full Gonzo

Michael Cohen, 3rd Party Consultants and Hunter S. Thompson: Part III - Where is Uncle Duke?

 

Matt Kelly’s piece AT&T Wins Ethics Award, Looks Ridiculous

May 14, 2018

In this episode I present a live podcast recording made at the 6thLEC Compliance Conference in Sao Paulo last week. In the podcast I interviewed Carlos Ayres, partner at Meada, Ayres and Sarubbi and Matt Ellis, Member at Miller & Chevalier. We discuss the burgeoning compliance scene in Brazil and across the continent of South America. Ayres reflects on some current issues facing compliance practitioners in region. Ellis discusses the raft of new anti-corruption laws in the continent. They both discuss the challenge of representing multi-nationals across the continent who may be subject multiple ongoing investigations and enforcement actions. They point out some of the unique compliance issues for the region. It is fascinating discussion of the current state of compliance and anti-corruption enforcement in Brazil and across the entire continent.

May 11, 2018

 As former DAG Sally Yates returns to private practice at King & Spalding, in the words of LL Cool J, “Don’t call it a comeback, I been here for years,” Jay Rosen and myself take a look at some of the top compliance stories over the past week.

  1. Michael Cohen explodes across the compliance universe. Matt Kelly writes in Radical Complianceand Buzzfeed, Tom and Matt podcast on Compliance into the Weeds, Francine McKenna quotes Matt and Mike Volkov in her piece on com. Finally Joe Mont considers it from the Bank Secrecy Act compliance angle in Compliance Week(sub req’d).
  2. Sally Yates returns to private practice at King & Spalding. com(sub req’d)and Washington Post.
  3. Katie Smith is the first chief ethics and compliance officer at Convercent, and has brought with her some new ideas about how to use technology to improve E&C Corporate Counsel
  4. GIR/JAC– Lawyers laud criminal division’s diversity provision for monitors (Pansonic Avionics DPA)
  5. FCPA Blog– Dick Cassin writes about Colombia investigating a dozen companies for overseas bribery
  6. FCPA Blog– Ankura’s Spinelli and Pilosio: Why is the construction industry so vulnerable to corruption?
  7. WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal– Ben DiPietro -- The Morning Risk Report: Companies Need to Look Deeper at Supply Chains
  8. WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal– Henry Cutter -- DOJ Targets ‘Duplicative Penalties’ Through Increased Coordination. See full text of Rosenstein remarks here.
  9. Tom reports on a week of speaking to compliance professional in Brazil. See his blog post Reflections on Week of Compliance in Brazil.
  10. Tom announces publication date of his next book, The Complete Compliance Handbook, which will be available on May 21, 2018 on Amazon.com. It is available for PreSale here.

For more information on how an independent monitor can help improve your company’s ethics and compliance program, visit our sponsor Affiliated Monitors at www.affiliatedmonitors.com.

May 11, 2018

In this first emergency Compliance into the Weeds podcast, Matt Kelly and myself review the information that Michael Cohen was paid by several US and international multi-national organizations for insight on and influence upon the Trump Administration. We consider it from the compliance angle and what steps a company is going to take if it hires the President’s personal lawyer as its paid lobbyist.

For more see Matt’s blog post on Radical Compliance entitled “Oh Lord, Michael Cohen Risk Is Now a Thing

And for even more see Matt’s piece in buzzfeed.com entitled, “It's Harder To Pay Off Foreign Governments Than The US One

May 10, 2018

In this podcast I have back well-known Board of Director thought-leader Sheila Hooda for a discussion on Boards can deal with the disruptive nature of current climate of economics, politics and business. She provides a clarion call for Board renewal through refocusing on strategy as a Board imperative. We explore several areas of Board refocus and renewal. 

We begin with some of the disruptions Boards face including digital, market, and regulatory disruption. We are seeing massive disruption – at a scale and pace never seen before and the pace is accelerating. There is disruption across industries and business models, brought about by a confluence of factors including Technology and digital forces, changing demographics and consumer preferences, regulation and market forces.

Tech has moved from being the enabler and supporter of business to being the primary driver and the differentiator. It has literally become the heart of the business, bringing both opportunity, challenges and new risks. Companies that do not change their strategy, innovate and move as a faster pace to keep ahead of this dynamically changing environment will risk losing their competitive advantage and ultimately go out of business.

 We next consider the implications for the Board, since the Board’s fundamental obligation is to enhance the long-term value of the company on behalf of shareholders. Therefore, the Board’s responsibility for dealing with disruption is grounded in this principle and this reality. As business disruption threatens the very sustainability of a company – it is the core fiduciary responsibility of the Board to manage, navigate and mitigate the risks of disruption for the companies they oversee.

Hooda believes that to discharge their responsibilities, Boards will need to evolve their practices and priorities with an urgency to remain relevant and to pivot and future-proof the companies they oversee. Boards set the tone at the top and with management for the organization. Embracing change, managing risks and fostering innovation-lead growth is needed to stay ahead of this tsunami of disruption to empower the organization to evolve faster and to succeed. Boards will need a new and enhanced role to play in managing change and disruption. High performance governance must lead, it does not follow.

With all this disruption on the horizon, what is the Board’s role and how can they be part of the solution to insure their company is ahead of the curve and competitive?Hooda believes that to answer the call for Board governance renewal, what can Boards do to reshape their roles to (1) Embrace change and disruption ; (2) Foster innovation; and (3) Manage the inherent risks.

Hooda concludes by noting that leading through disruption and fostering innovation is not easy and will require a delicate rebalance of the fiduciary responsibility of the Board and the executive power of management. To achieve this, she says there needs to be a brand-new way of thinking about Board-management engagement. Management and their Boards need to begin to have a different kind of dialogue, one that is characterized less by fully baked ideas and more about an open-door policy characterized by a free exchange of ideas and perspectives. This shift requires a new vulnerability on the part of management and the willingness to seek out Board members’ perspective on a regular basis.

On the Board’s part a stronger partnership with management is needed to share ownership. This will require a higher level of trust and transparency. Sufficient time should be allocated on the Board’s agenda to continued education, brainstorming, debate and discussion, and honest feedback about ideas. This model of governance also requires both management and Boards to stay current which is a major challenge in the face of constant change. Boards will need to be create some space to have blue ocean type of continual education and thinking so that Boards and managements can discuss alternatives, changing assumptions and the competitive environment.

May 9, 2018

In this episode we consider the presidency of the 10thPresident, John Tyler. Tyler was the first president to ascend to the position after the death of President in office, William Henry Harrison. This ascendency, as his presidency was fraught with difficulties and conflict. We consider the following:

  1. Tyler was not viewed as a legitimate president as he ascended due to the death of a President in office, William Henry Harrison.
  2. Tyler was the first President against whom impeachment proceedings were brought.
  3. Tyler had no real political base while President as he had been in the Democratic Party up until he became a Whig to run in 1840.
  4. Tyler was the first President to veto legislation based upon policy, not constitutional considerations.
  5. Tyler was the first President to have a mass Cabinet resignation.
  6. Tyler was the first President to have his Cabinet nominees defeated in the Senate.
  7. Tyler was the only President to face an open, armed rebellion from a State, the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island; up until Lincoln.

In addition to the foregoing Richard Lummis and I consider the leadership lessons from Tyler in the following areas:

  1. His ascension to the Presidency and establishment of the Tyler Principle for succession.
  2. Economic issues including the tariff and veto of the Bank bills.
  3. His handling of the Dorr Rebellion
  4. Texas Annexation
  5. The Princeton Incident
1 2 Next »