Four Keys to Compliance Leadership

One of the most divisive moments in American history occurred on this date in 1868. On this day the US Senate voted against impeaching President Andrew Johnson thereby acquitting him of having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” as required under the US Constitution. After all the arguments had been presented for and against him, Johnson waited for his fate, which hung on one swing vote, as there is a Constitutional requirement that requires a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate for impeachment. The vote was one short, at 35-19. Johnson was acquitted and finished out his term. If Johnson had been impeached, it surely would have led to a very different political development in the US, where not liking the sitting President could have become a constitutional basis for impeachment.

The Radical Republicans who ran the Congress immediately after the conclusion of the Civil War certainly did not think much of President Johnson’s leadership style. So what about you as a compliance officer? Certainly part of your leadership is implementing and enhancing policies and procedures? In many ways it is the human element, which President Johnson sorely lacked, that you may well need to devote most of your time focusing on. I recently read an excellent article it the Corner Office section of the New York Times (NYT), entitled “We’re Family Yes, but We’re Still Accountable”, in which Adam Bryant reported on his interview with Brooke Denihan Barrett, the co-Chief Executive Officer (co-CEO) of the Denihan Hospitality Group (Denihan), a 50-year old family business which focuses on the hospitality business.

Training

One of the things that Barrett has learned is how to train people. She explained that “I thought the way you got things done was by telling people what to do. That’s where I learned what not to do. I spent a good portion of my time telling people what they did wrong instead of really encouraging them about what they did right.” She came to realize that was perhaps not the best way to manage people and “learned to cut people some slack.” She said that she found “that you get a lot more with the carrot routine than the stick routine. I also realized that you really needed to explain the “why” of things. You need to give people a little bit of space to come around, and say, “Yeah, that makes sense,” before you really engage them in what needed to be done.”

I found that her final point may be critical for compliance training. By explaining the why of compliance, employees can better understand what the company is trying to accomplish. So if your goal is to do business in an ethical manner, then explain this and how the company’s compliance program will help to accomplish this goal through its policies and procedures.

Accountability

One of the things that Barrett emphasized was the erroneous perception that because her company was a family business there was no accountability. She made clear that “You have to set certain standards that you want people to live up to. And if people need help, then we want to help them along the way.” However, accountability is a two-way street. Just as the employee must be held accountable, so must the company in terms of providing support to allow employees who want to do the right thing and to do their job well. Barrett said, “Sometimes organizations can fall down if they don’t also ask: How do you give people the tools they need to be successful? How do you get that person to understand what change needs to happen, and how do you help them along the way? Because people can’t always figure it out on their own, and nor should you expect them to.”

Listening

Many of the CEOs that Bryant interviews for his Corner Office section speak about the need for listening skills. Barrett was no exception. But as CEO she found that employees were sometimes reluctant to speak openly and candidly with her. So she began to meet with employees in small groups of 10 to 12 people. At Denihan they call them ‘Roundtables’. Barrett said that she will say to them ““Tell me something I don’t know.” And I’ll get comments like: “Oh, but you know everything. You’re the C.E.O.” It’s just a reminder of the perceptions that people have of the head of the company. But every time I ask that question, I learn something new.” Imagine as a compliance officer if you were to ask that question in a roundtable, what do you think you might hear back from your company’s employees?

Barrett also spoke about how to have a ‘difficult conversation’. She said that if there is a mistake made she views it as an opportunity for learning and professional growth. At Denihan, they call them ‘lessons learned conversations’ and they may occur with a group where a problem has arisen. Barrett related, “we might bring people together in a room who were involved in a project and ask: What were the things that worked? What were the things that didn’t? What could we have done differently? And we’ve had some very spirited and cathartic conversations. You have to be able to let people put something on the table without actually pointing the finger. It allows things to come out in more of a non-accusatory manner.”

Hiring and Promotion

These are two key areas in compliance that are finally beginning to receive the attention that they deserve. Barrett’s thoughts on how she views these in the context of her interviewing are instructive. She acknowledged that by the “time somebody meets me, you can assume that the skills are there. So what I interview for is fit. And I’m always very curious to know, what is it about our company that appeals to that person?” She asks specifically about culture, requesting the candidate define it and how do you think that culture is special. She also asks candidates to talk about a failure and what lessons that they learned from the experience and how they dealt with the experience. I would suggest that both of those lines of inquiries should be used when evaluating a candidate for hire or promotion.

Barrett’s interview provided some interesting insights on leadership. Moreover, her experience in professional growth has shown there are different styles and techniques that you can successfully use in your company’s compliance program. Train people on the reasons why your company is doing compliance so that they will understand how to do it. Make them accountable but also provide them with the compliance tools and support to do business the right way. If there is a problem or issue, use it as a lesson learned so that employees can profit from the experience. Lastly, make a discussion of culture a cornerstone in your hiring interview or promotion interview process.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

How Much Due Diligence is Enough?

Do you really know who you are doing business with in your supply chain? How much due diligence is enough? Should you update your due diligence on a regular basis? How about on a continuous basis? What ethical considerations come into play in the manufacturing sector, in the supply chain? These questions, and perhaps more, came to me as I was reading about the recent tragedy in Bangladesh involving the collapse of Rana Plaza. At this time, there are 433 confirmed dead and police report that 149 people are still missing in what has become the worst disaster for Bangladesh’s $20 billion-a-year garment industry. The collapsed building was built and owned by Mohammed Sohel Rana, he was not the owner of the factories that operated in Rana Plaza; he was simply the building owner and landlord and, therefore, is legally required to provide a safe structure

In an article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “The Most Hated Bangladeshi, Toppled From a Shady Empire”, reporter Jim Yardley wrote about Mr. Rana’s rise to power and the problems that companies face when trying to do the right thing regarding corporate social responsibility in general, and bribery and corruption specifically, in the supply chain. This problem has become much more public for clothing companies who purchase finished goods from countries like Bangladesh. This is because even if you know who you are directly contracting with, your company may not know the subcontractors or your direct counter-party and you probably have no chance to know who the building owner or landlord might be. Finally, how can you determine if the building where your products are being produced meets minimum building code standards or is even safe to work in at all?

Rana Plaza was originally designed as a five story building. Yardley’s article details the methods that Rana used to secure the land and the permits to construct the building. Yardley reported, “To build Rana Plaza, Mr. Rana and his father bullied adjacent landowners, the landowners themselves say, and ultimately took their property by force. His political allies gave him a construction permit, despite his dubious claims of title to the land, and a second permit later to add upper floors that may have destabilized the building.” After the building was completed Mr. Rana successfully leased “out the existing five floors and gotten a permit from the local mayor, a political ally, to build additional floors. Mr. Khan, the former mayor, said this practice created serious risks, since officials were handing out permits, often for bribes, without insisting on the necessary safeguards.”

On the day before the building collapse “Workers on the third floor were stitching clothing when they were startled by a noise that sounded like an explosion. Cracks had appeared in the building. Workers rushed outside in terror. By late morning, Mr. Rana’s representatives had brought in Abdur Razzaque Khan, an engineer. Taken to the third floor, Mr. Khan examined three support pillars, and became horrified at the cracks he found. “I became scared,” Mr. Khan said. “It was not safe to stay inside this building.” He rushed downstairs and told one of Mr. Rana’s administrators that the building needed to be closed immediately. But Mr. Rana was apparently not impressed; he was holding court with about a dozen local journalists.”

Yardley quoted another journalist, Shamim Hossain, a local newspaper reporter, who reported that Mr. Rana said, “This is not a crack. The plaster on the wall is broken, nothing more. It is not a problem.” Unfortunately the next day the building collapsed.

Rana had rammed five separate garment factories into his now eight story building. How many people were employed there? I don’t think anyone will ever know the true number. As for Mr. Rana, perhaps understanding his personal criminal exposure for these actions, he was caught trying to flee the country. He is now in police custody. He, of course, says it was the evil factory owners which caused the entire catastrophe.

If your company is a US or EU purchaser of such finished products, what should your response be? In another NYT article, entitled “Some Retailers Rethink Role in Bangladesh”, reporter Steven Greenhouse noted that the Walt Disney Company “in March ordered an end to production of branded merchandise in Bangladesh.” Greenhouse said, “Disney’s move reflects the difficult calculus that companies with operations in countries like Bangladesh are facing as they balance profit and reputation against the backdrop of a wrenching human disaster.”

But is this the right response? In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “Business must lead in Bangladesh”, John Grapper wrote “The first thing western companies need to do is the simplest: to stay in the country and to keep providing jobs for women, not to withdraw because they fear being tainted by association. Despite everything, the industry provides better-paid jobs than the alternative – working on rural farms – and has helped to emancipate women.”

Gapper further argues that US and EU retailer collective action is the only thing which will force change upon a corrupt Bangladeshi government. He said, “The second thing brands and retailers must do is band together. The factories they directly oversee in export zones tend to be better run. But they exert weak influence over the contractors and subcontractors that comprise most of the industry. Retailers use auditors to inspect suppliers but lack the information or power to stop abuses. Rana Plaza shows the difficulties. Planning and building controls are lax in Bangladesh and there is no simple way to check whether a factory is properly built. Raising building standards is beyond the power of any single company – it needs concerted action.”

Many have argued that the US government in particular has no place in enforcing its version of morality, in the form of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). But rarely is the flip side of this argument discussed, that being where a business solution can help to end corruption. Gapper notes this reality with the following, “Collectively, companies could push the government to overcome the obstacles of corruption, hidden army influence and factory owners who double as politicians. They hold the buying power in a sector that makes up 13 per cent of gross domestic product.”

What is the cost of bribery and corruption? I think that we are seeing it played out daily in Bangladesh as each body is pulled out of the rubble of the Rana Plaza. As a US company, how can you manage your FCPA risk? Should you perform due diligence on your landlord? I do not think any US company would think more than a nano-second when answering that question if they were leasing office space for their own employees. But the tragedy at Rana Plaza does beg the question, how much due diligence is enough and how far is far enough down the supply chain?

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

How To Demonstrate Ethics and Compliance – Earn It, Re-Earn It and Re-Evaluate It

What should your company do if it finds itself in a situation where some of its senior leadership has engaged in conduct which violates its own ethical standards or external legal standard such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Assume your company is now in McNulty Maxim No. 3 of “What did you do about it?” as you have investigated the conduct and disciplined the senior management in question. However, you want to go further and try to take steps that will detect and prevent the conduct in the future.

A current example of this is going on in the US military. In reaction to recent scandals involving lapses of personal character, the US military has instituted a series of changes to help military commanders to focus on ethical standards. In an article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Conduct at Issue as Military Officers Face a New Review”, Thom Shanker discussed a range of responses that the military will pursue. He reported that “The new effort is being led by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as part of a broad overhaul of training and development programs for generals and admirals. It will include new courses to train the security detail, executive staffs and even the spouses of senior officers.” The article quoted General Dempsey as saying, “Conversely, you can have someone who is intensely competent, who is steeped in the skills of the profession, but doesn’t live a life of character. And that doesn’t do me any good.”

The military has initiated three broad responses. The first is a “regularly scheduled professional reviews would be transformed from top-down assessments to the kind of “360-degree performance evaluation” often seen in corporate settings.” A 360-degree review is one which comes from members of an employee’s immediate work circle. Most often, 360-degree feedback will include direct feedback from an employee’s subordinates, peers, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation. It can also include, in some cases, feedback from external sources, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. The results from a 360-degree evaluation are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan and map specific paths in their development.

While acknowledging the challenges from that comes from a subordinate review in a top-down hierarchical structure, such as the military, General Dempsey stated that “we’ve developed some bad habits” and that “It’s those bad habits we are seeking to overcome.” The article quoted Richard H. Kohn, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who specializes in military culture who said “he thought the 360-degree evaluation would have a positive effect on the leadership styles of many officers. He also stated that “It will reduce what the military calls ‘toxic leadership,’ elevating those who are highly competent but also fair and less brusque and peremptory.”

The second response was increased training on values. “General Dempsey said the demands of combat deployments in the past decade had prevented officers from attending the academic programs that historically had been integrated into an officer’s career every few years, and he pledged to rebalance that.” I found this quote very fascinating as it showed the extent that the military uses outside resources, I.E. civilian academic programs to supplement training on military values. Due to the increased deployments since 9/11, these traditional academic rotations have been less ongoing. Dr. Kohn found that these new training programs are a good enhancement to military training as “most officers need to be reminded of the rules and regulations on a routine basis.” But this training will go past simply the senior officers as “new programs will be instituted to ensure that a commander’s staff, and a spouse, are fully aware of military regulations.”

The third component will be more internal audits. The articled noted that “Under General Dempsey’s plan teams of inspectors will observe and review the procedures of commanders and their staffs. The inspections will not be punitive, but will provide a “periodic opportunity for general officers and flag officers to understand whether, from an institutional perspective, we think they are inside or outside the white lines.”” I found this component to be similar to the ‘Mock Audit’ concept that is used in the power industry that I recently wrote about in the post “In Praise of the Mock Audit”. A ‘Mock Audit’ is a mechanism by which a compliance team can go into a facility and not only try to determine what might need remediation but, equally importantly, help the employees in that facility to move towards greater compliance.

For the FCPA compliance practitioner, this response by the US military has some very interesting parallels to what the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) say should be in your FCPA compliance program. The DOJ/SEC FCPA Guidance demonstrates that a company should strengthen and supplement its compliance program on causes underlying the compliance issues which arose. The Guidance states, “An effective compliance program promotes “an organizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law.” Such a program protects a company’s reputation, ensures investor value and confidence, reduces uncertainty in business transactions, and secures a company’s assets. A well-constructed, thoughtfully implemented, and consistently enforced compliance and ethics program helps prevent, detect, remediate, and report misconduct, including FCPA violations. [emphasis supplied] Further, in its section on Declinations, one of the six common elements which companies that received declinations engaged in was to make their compliance program more robust around the FCPA violation which arose. Clearly the DOJ and SEC believe that a company with a strong compliance system and culture will not only be in better position to comply with the FCPA but will be a better company.

General Dempsey clearly believes that the military has high ethical values. Shanker wrote that “He said the issue of understanding the military as a profession, and not just an occupation, had fascinated him since his days as a junior officer; he would be subject to the same rules, regulations and assessments he now is championing.” Shanker ended his article with the following quote from General Dempsey, “In my 39 years in the military, I have learned that you are not a profession just because you say you are,” he said. “You have to earn it and re-earn it and re-evaluate it from time to time.”

To me that sounds something like the following-you are not an ethical company because you say you are but because you do compliance by putting in the policies and procedures to do so.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Compliance: Having Everyone Join In – From the Board Room to the Shop Floor

Today in history should be known as “End of Military Leaders Day” as not only is this the 199^th anniversary of Napoleon’s exile to Elba (although he did make somewhat of a comeback) it is also the 62^nd anniversary of Truman’s sacking of Douglas MacArthur (although MacArthur did get to address Congress). Whatever you think of these two men as human beings, you cannot under-rate them as great leaders of armies. They both were able to get men to achieve far beyond what they believed were their capabilities. I thought about great generals and other leaders when reading a recent article in the New York Times (NYT), Corner Office section where reporter Adam Bryant interviewed Dr. David Rock, in an article entitled “A Boss’s Challenge: Have Everyone Join the ‘In’ Group”. In this piece, Bryant highlighted some of the mechanisms which Rock, who is the director of the NeuroLeadership Institute (NLI), believes that it is important for managers to make employees feel like they are on the same team.

Generally speaking Rock believes that the brain categorizes everything into one of two categories: threat or reward. He thinks people are driven unconsciously to stay away from threat and are driven unconsciously to go toward reward. This decision about threat or reward happens five times every second. But this can all be very subtle as employees are making this decision about everything good or bad all the time. He has based this theory on research in the last 10 years or so which he believes demonstrates that things that create the strongest threats and rewards are social. Social threats and rewards activate what’s called the brain’s primary threat-and-reward center, which is actually the pain-and-pleasure center. This was a big surprise, to see that someone feeling left out of an activity, for example, would activate the same regions as if they had put their hand on a hot plate.

He breaks these concepts down with the acronym SCARF; which stands for status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. I found that these concepts had some useful analogies for the compliance practitioner in not only how to engage employees, but also to have them buy into and become a part of a company’s compliance regime.

Status

Rock believes that status is your perception of where you are in the pecking order around you, and it’s a feeling of being better or worse than others. People feel uncomfortable until we work out our status with people. We are more comfortable and we’re more effective when there is a clear status arrangement between people. When we feel a higher status, we get a slight reward. When we feel lower status, we get a strong threat. The challenge is that if somebody continuously fights for high status, all the other people around them might be getting a strong threat response.

For the compliance practitioner, I think that the key here is to get out of the office and into the field. The more employees see you, the more they will move away from seeing compliance in an ivory tower and more towards compliance being part of the overall business process. This can also mean embedding compliance department members in high risk projects or high risk geographic areas. The more compliance is seen, the more comfortable employees will feel in bringing matters to you.

Certainty

Certainty is critical. Rock believes that the feeling of uncertainty feels like pain, when you can’t predict when the lights will come back on and you’re holding multiple possible futures in your head. That turns out to be cognitively exhausting. And the more we can predict the future, the more rewarded we feel. The less we can predict the future, the more threatened we feel. As soon as any ambiguity arises in even a very simple activity, we get a threat response. So we are driven to create certainty.

For the compliance practitioner, I think this is where the ‘we all wear the same color shirt’ concept is important. When compliance looks into something or looks at how processes are being followed in business units, it should not be perceived as a threat to employees but how to work better and more efficiently in the context of compliance.

Autonomy

For Rock, autonomy is a sense of control. While it is similar to certainty he believes that there are differences. Certainty is prediction. Autonomy is control. And it’s a very important thing for us to feel a sense of control, so much so that a small stress where you have no control generally is in fact a very big stress. When autonomy goes down, it’s a strong threat. So when the boss walks in the room, they’ve got the final say, so suddenly your autonomy goes down.

For the compliance practitioner, I think that setting clear expectations can help employees in this area. The more that they understand what is required of them the more that they understand their obligations. This includes any compliance component of evaluations or bonuses. The more you can explain, teach and educate, the more employees will recognize what is required of them.

Relatedness

Rock next spoke about ‘relatedness’ which he believes is the decision about each person we interact with, for example other employees, which impacts basic processing. This decision boils down to “Are you in my ‘in’ group or in my ‘out’ group?” If an employee decides that they are part of your “in” group, they will process what you say using the same brain networks as thinking your own thoughts. Conversely, if they decide they are in your “out” group, you use a totally different brain network. So the very level of unconscious perception has a huge impact based on the decision of: “Is this person similar to me? Are they on my team? Do we have shared goals, or are they in my out group?” This is also the same of teamwork and collaboration. It feels good to be with “in” group members. But we basically treat everyone as foe until proven otherwise, with the exception of really attractive people or if you’ve had a moderate amount to drink.

The important question for the compliance practitioner becomes, “How do we create an ‘in’ group for compliance?” If you can create shared compliance goals among people, you can create quite a strong “in” group fairly quickly. When you can find a shared goal, you turn an “out” group” into an “in” group. But this requires a company leader to create shared goals across an organization; otherwise an organization will be a series of silos.

For the compliance practitioner I think the domain where leaders can have the biggest impact is relatedness. Many people have had a boss they really wanted to work hard for because they respected them. It doesn’t have to be love, but it does have to be a sense of respect. And I think that those bosses have worked hard to have a sense of relatedness with people, which comes from having shared goals and making sure there’s a feeling of being on the same team, not a sense of “us” and “them.”

Fairness

The final one is fairness, Rock says that it is “very fundamental.” A fair exchange of anything is intrinsically rewarding. An unfair exchange of anything is intrinsically threatening – and not just threatening, but very intensely threatening. Fairness is about several things. First and foremost the compliance practitioner must treat everyone fairly, from the ‘board room to the shop floor’ so that if someone violates the compliance program they are promptly investigated and disciplined, if warranted. But it also means transparency so that employees understand what their obligations are and what rewards they will receive if they meet those obligations.

Bryant’s article has some interesting insights for not only compliance leadership but also for compliance engagement. While you may not get the blind devotion that Napoleon and MacArthur were able to engender, you may be able to obtain better buy-in and strength for your compliance program.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Transparency Is The Key to Keeping Everyone Rowing Together for Compliance

One of the concepts articulated in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Guidance was that every company should assess its own risks for bribery and corruption and manage those risks accordingly. In the introductory section of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program it states:

Compliance programs that employ a “check-the-box” approach may be inefficient and, more importantly, ineffective. Because each compliance program should be tailored to an organization’s specific needs, risks, and challenges, the information provided below should not be considered a substitute for a company’s own assessment of the corporate compliance program most appropriate for that particular business organization. In the end, if designed carefully, implemented earnestly, and enforced fairly, a company’s compliance program—no matter how large or small the organization—will allow the company generally to prevent violations, detect those that do occur, and remediate them promptly and appropriately.

Last week I focused on the above regarding the issue of having a carefully designed and reasoned approach to your compliance program. Today I will focus on the above quote for another benchmark for your compliance program transparency. In a recent article in the Corner Office section of the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Transparency Is Much More Than a Buzzword”, reporter Adam Bryant interviewed Ryan Smith, co-founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qualtrics, a provider of online research survey platforms.

Smith said that his company is “extremely transparent, but not so that we can be cool. And it’s not about an open environment, because that’s not what makes a company transparent. It’s more around the fact that everyone needs to know where we are going and how we are going to get there.” He wants everyone to understand the company’s “objectives and make that available to everyone as we’re evolving, so people aren’t guessing and they’re not internally focused. That’s one obstacle a lot of companies fall into.”

Further, Smith believes that his company should “be transparent because we want to encourage our people to have all the information to keep them focused on what really matters — our objectives and how they’re going to contribute.” He explained that transparency helps everyone in the organization understand what the goals are and how they are working to achieve them. This transparency has an effect on everyone because they understand the environment that they are operating in within the overall company structure. But Qualtrics has taken this to a very high and detailed level. Smith described the following path for transparency, “We have another system that sends everyone an e-mail on Monday that says: “What are you going to get done this week? And what did you get done last week that you said you were going to do?” Then that rolls up into one e-mail that the entire organization gets. So if someone’s got a question, they can look at that for an explanation. We share other information, too — every time we have a meeting, we release meeting notes to the organization. When we have a board meeting, we write a letter about it afterward and send it to the organization.” By doing this Smith believes that “When everyone’s rowing together toward the same objective, it’s extremely powerful. We’re trying to execute at a very high level, and we need to make sure everyone knows where we’re going.”

The idea that transparency has importance in the compliance function is clear. If everyone understands that compliance and ethics are a value of the company, then everyone can operate in that manner. Smith made clear that at his company and all of the employees need to know where the company is going and how the company should get there. One of the keys that Smith articulates is that a company should focus on transparency so that people “aren’t guessing”. If your company simply focuses on quarterly numbers, the message is that you need to do everything you can to meet your numbers. In other words wherever compliance falls into your company scale of importance, it is not Number 1 or even Number 2.

Throughout the Ten Hallmarks of an effective compliance program is the concept of transparency through communications. Obviously it starts at the top but written policies, procedures and fair administration of your compliance program are key as well. Risk assessment, then monitoring should be used to help employees do business in a more compliant manner through remediation. If you are transparent in this process not only will employees understand better and more fully the purposes behind these practices but they will embrace the solutions going forward. As Smith noted, “We can’t control the way they think. All we can control or have an effect on is the environment around them.”

If Smith can use transparency to get everyone at Qualtrics “rowing together” I believe that you can use this same technique to get employees all moving forward on doing business in an ethical and compliant manner. Remember “Transparency” is the key.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Quadrophenia and Four Compliance Issues

This past weekend I saw the remaining members of The Who perform in their Quadrophenia Tour. While I had seen Roger Daltry perform the rock opera Tommy, I had never seen Pete Townsend in concert. To say I was blown away would be putting it mildly, especially as Quadrophenia does not even make it into my top three favorite Who albums, which are, in descending order, Who’s Next, Tommy and Live at Leeds. While Roger Daltry’s voice was not as strong as it was during his Tommy tour, not doubt due to the longer duration of this tour, it was still a great performance and it was worth it to see Pete Townsend. He can still rock. Also they ended the show with three songs from Who’s Next, which alone was worth the price of admission.

The story generally revolves around four themes based upon the four personalities of the members of the band; Daltry, Townsend, Keith Moon and John Entwhistle. However, it was also a play on (for those of you old enough to remember) quadrophonic sound. According to Pete Townsend, “”The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic, but in a creative sort of way. I mean I wanted themes to sort of emerge from corners. So you start to get the sense of the fourness being literally speaker for speaker.” So inspired by ‘fourness’ today, I will review four issues that have, or will, impact the compliance practitioner.

I.                   EU and Data Privacy

In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “EU refuses to bend on tough data privacy law”, reporter James Fontanella-Khan wrote that Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner for Justice, said that she will continue to fight any US attempts to water down its proposed data protection and privacy law, “which would force global technology companies to obey European standards across the globe.” Further, “Exempting non-EU countries from our data protection regulations is not on the table. It would mean applying a double standard.” Fontanella-Khan said that “US tech companies argue that it would be unfair for them to be subject to EU laws that are too stringent and could result in expensive administrative burdens and hefty fines for errant companies.” Can you think of any US laws that non-US companies have to comply with?

Issues for the compliance practitioner? There could be a myriad, from internal investigations, to sharing data with US regulators to ongoing monitoring and auditing. While it is currently US technology companies which are leading the fight against these new tough standards, non-tech companies could do well to assess how these changes may well impact them.

II.                Will DOJ Open FCPA Investigation Against EADS?

Perhaps not fully appreciating the irony in reporting the EADS story in the same issue as the above EU data privacy story, the FT also had an article by Carola Hoyos, entitled “FBI probe of EADS unit claims”, who reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has interviewed “a witness and taken possession of documents in connection with allegations” that a British subsidiary of the European aerospace entity EADS, named GPT Special Management Systems, bribed Saudi Arabian military officials, in connection with business dealings. Hoyos reported that GPT “made ₤11.5 of unexplained payments – some via the US – to bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.”

Although there is no known open US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation open into the EADS matter at this point, Hoyos noted that it was the DOJ which led the effort to investigate and eventually fine the UK company BAE, the amount of $400MM after the British government ordered the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) inquiry into allegations of BAE bribery for sales of equipment into Saudi Arabia “citing economic and diplomatic interests”. The FBI interviews occurred even though the SFO is currently investigating the matter. Hoyos also reported that EADS “maintained that its own investigations into the matter had yielded no evidence of wrongdoing.”

III.             Think Before You Hit That Send Button

In a post in his blog, the D&O Diary, entitled “Damning E-mails: Can We Talk?”, author Kevin LaCroix wrote that “revelations this past week arguably represent some type of high-water mark, as a cluster of serious allegations were accompanied by a trove of embarrassing excerpts from emails and instant messages. While the latest disclosures provide yet another reminder of the dangers associated with ill-considered use of modern electronic communications technology, they also raise questions about the use that regulators and claimants are attempting to make of the communications.” He was talking about the Commodities Futures Trading Commission’s press releases announcing RBS’s settlement this past week of charges of alleged Libor manipulation drew heavily on excerpts from the bank’s internal electronic communications. While noting that “emails do sometimes in fact evidence wrongdoing” the problem with them “is that when seemingly damning email excerpts are blasted into the media, it is very difficult to appreciate the larger context within which the excerpts fit.”

As much as he has distaste for the selective use of emails in this manner by regulators, LaCroix believes that they can provide a teachable moment. He writes that “a useful exercise to try to adopt is to pause and ask yourself, before hitting “send”, how the message would look if it were to fall into the hands of a hostile and aggressive adversary who was looking for ways to try to make you or your company look bad. Were this simple test to be more widely implemented, we would certainly see a marked reduction in, for example, running email jokes about the French maid’s outfit. My final thought is this – we all know that many electronic messages are written in haste and sometimes with insufficient care. With full awareness of this attribute of electronic communications, we should hesitate to jump to too many conclusions about the seemingly damaging inferences that could be drawn from email or instant message excerpts. But we should also learn from the inferences that regulators and claimants are trying to draw and try to take that into account in our own communications.” I could not have put it better myself.

IV.              Trust Your Gut and Raise Your Hand

There have recently been a plethora of articles about ‘big data’ and how it can help in the monitoring of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program. I have been one of the folks to write and talk about it. However, in an article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Sure, Big Data is Great. But So Is Intuition”, reporter Steve Lohr wrote that while he thinks that big data is a powerful tool and an unstoppable tread it “might be a time for reflection, questions and qualms about this technology.” This is because, like all mathematical models, big data is “a simplification.” He quotes Thomas Davenport for the following. “A major part of managing Big Data projects, he says, is asking the right questions: How do you define the problem? What data do you need? Where does it come from? What are the assumptions behind the model that the data is fed into? How is the model different from reality?”

So the underlying basis for analyzing big data may actually be “too simple minded, rather than too smart.” All of this leads back to intuition. I would add that if the hair on the back of your neck stands up, your gut tells you something is wrong or something does not smell right, it probably isn’t right. The implications for the compliance practitioner? I would like to propose that the largest is in the area of training. What I try and tell non-compliance practitioners when I put on training is that if you see, smell or sense one of the above, just raise your hand. You do not have to know the ins and outs of the FCPA or know the answer but I do ask that you raise your hand and get the issue to a person who does have the expertise to analyze the issue.

If you have the chance to see The Who on their Quadrophenia Tour, all I can say is to drop whatever you are doing and go see it. I do not know if it will be your last chance to see Pete Townsend but when he winds up for one of those trademark windmill slams down the guitar strings, just close your eyes and listen. It is pure bliss and a quad of sensations for the ages.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Amnesty for Armstrong? Lessons for the Compliance Practitioner

The Lance Armstrong saga continues to provide many lessons for the compliance practitioner. A recent article on ESPN.com, entitled “Lance calls for amnesty program”, reported that Armstrong has come out in favor of those who openly speak about the doping culture of cycling, of course most notably him. The article stated “Now that doping has become such a big problem, Armstrong said a truth and reconciliation program is the “only way” to rid cycling of performance-enhancing drugs, and the sport’s governing body should have no role in the process.” In an interview given to Cyclingnews, it was reported that Armstrong said that the “best way forward is a truth and reconciliation process offering amnesty to riders and officials who detail doping in the sport.”

When asked which anti-doping agency should give this amnesty and which one should take such testimony Armstrong answered that “the program should be run by the World Anti-Doping Agency and not the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the body that produced a scathing report detailing systematic doping by Armstrong and his teams. The USADA report led to Armstrong being stripped of his seven Tour titles and banned from elite sport for life.” Not too surprising that Armstrong does not want to get anywhere near USADA given the report they released on him last summer. Armstrong stated that complete amnesty must be given “otherwise no one will show up.” Any chance that ‘no one’ he refers to would be himself?

While Armstrong’s idea of a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ program may seem, well shall we say, a tad self-serving, the use of a suspended or lessened sentence has been successfully used to elicit testimony in the cycling world.According to the New York Times, USADA had “the ability to offer other cyclists reduced suspensions if they provided information about Armstrong’s doping. Similar to how prosecutors try to persuade lower-level drug dealers to share information about their superiors, the anti-doping agency sat down one by one with cyclists from Armstrong’s teams. Ultimately, 11 agreed to cooperate.” So I guess people will show up if you offer them some type of amnesty, just not the top banana.

What is the compliance angle to amnesty programs? Siemens used an amnesty program to help it investigate its worldwide bribery scheme. In November 2007, Siemens began an amnesty program relating to possible violations of anti-public-corruption laws in order to expedite the independent investigation and facilitate clarification. According to an article in the FCPA Blog, entitled “Siemens’ Employees Come In From The Cold”, Siemens began this amnesty program because its “internal investigation reportedly had stalled because of stonewalling by managers in various countries.”

In the first three months 66 employees came forward in connection with the amnesty program. In addition, a large number of employees received information about the program. “The amnesty program has been very successful” Peter Y. Solmssen, member of the Managing Board and General Counsel of Siemens AG said. He went on to say “We’re pleased that so many employees have made use of the program and are thereby expediting clarification.” By mid-January, 2008, Siemens’ counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton, said that “[s]ince November 28, 2007, we have obtained significant new information and developed very substantial leads from participants in Siemens’ amnesty program, as well as other sources, regarding topics relevant to our investigation.” Siemens itself said that information provided by the employees who ‘came in from the cold’ through this amnesty program gave it new leads to pursue in its internal investigation. At the end of the day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lauded Siemens amnesty program, which it characterized as “innovative” in helping to further Siemens internal investigation.

Further, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported in March 2008, in an article entitled “Siemens Amnesty Plan Assists Bribery Probe”, that the amnesty program “was offered to all employees except 300 of Siemens’s top executives and expired at the end of February [2008], prompted about 110 employees to offer information about alleged wrongdoing.” Under the amnesty program, the company did not make claims for damages or unilaterally terminate employee relationships. However, Siemens reserved the right to impose lesser disciplinary measures.

So what about Armstrong and his ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ idea? In the ESPN.com article, he intones that he is really the victim here. First of all, he feels that he is really the fall guy for the sport of cycling, because you know, everybody was doing it. He just did it better. He also said it was unfair that those who testified against him had received “minor off-seasons sanctions versus the death penalty” for himself. He was quoted as saying, “What is relevant is that everyone is treated equally and fairly. We all made the mess, let’s all fix the mess, and let’s all be punished equally.” That certainly sounds like someone who is repentant, doesn’t it?

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

How To You Move Ethical Values Down Through Your Company?

What do employees want most in their company’s values? That is a question that has plagued companies for many, many years. I would argue that one of the concepts which should be in the conversation is respect for a company’s ethical values. One of the tasks in any company is to get senior and middle management to respect the stated ethics and values of a company, because if they do so, this will be communicated down through the organization. This topic was explored in a recent article, entitled “If the Supervisors Respect Values, So Will Everyone Else”, in the Corner Office section of the New York Times (NYT), when reporter Adam Bryant interviewed Victoria Ransom, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Wildfire, a company which provides social media marketing software.

Company Values

Ransom spoke about the role of senior management in communicating ethical values when she said “Another lesson I’ve learned as the company grows is that you’re only as good as the leaders you have underneath you. And that was sometimes a painful lesson. You might think that because you’re projecting our values, then the rest of the company is experiencing the values.” These senior managers communicate what the company’s ethics and values are to middle management. So while tone at the top is certainly important in setting a standard, she came to appreciate that it must move downward through the entire organization. Ransom came to realize “that the direct supervisors become the most important influence on people in the company. Therefore, a big part of leading becomes your ability to pick and guide the right people.”

Ransom said that when the company was young and small they tried to codify their company values but they did not get far in the process “because it felt forced.” As the company grew she realized that their values needed to be formalized and stated for a couple of reasons. The first was because they wanted to make it clear what was expected of everyone and “particularly because you want the new people who are also hiring to really know the values.” Another important reason was that they had to terminate “a few people because they didn’t live up to the values. If we’re going to be doing that, it’s really important to be clear about what the values are. I think that some of the biggest ways we showed that we lived up to our values were when we made tough decisions about people, especially when it was a high performer who somehow really violated our values, and we took action.” These actions to terminate had a very large effect on the workforce. Ransom said that “it made employees feel like, “Yeah, this company actually puts its money where its mouth is.””

Ransom wanted to make clear to everyone what senior management considered when determining whether employees “are living up to the company culture.” The process started when she and her co-founder spent a weekend writing down what they believed the company’s values were. Then they sat down with the employees in small groups to elicit feedback. Her approach was to look for what they wanted in their employees. They came up with five.

• Passion: Do you really have a thirst and appetite for your work?
• Humility and Integrity: Treat your co-workers with respect and dignity.
• Courage: Speak up – if you have a great idea, tell us, and if you disagree with people in the room, speak up.
• Curiosity: They wanted folks who would constantly question and learn, not only about the company but about the industry.
• Impact: Are you having an impact at the company?
• Be outward-looking: Do good and do right by each other.

Leadership

Ransom came to realize that as her company’s leader, more was expected from her. Her employees listened to what she said. This is one of the best descriptions of ‘tone at the top’ that I’ve seen. Ransom “started to realize how what you say can have such an influence. You can’t just say things off the cuff anymore, because people take it so much more seriously than you ever meant it. And that can be good and bad. The bad is that you might say something sort of flippant, or you’re trying to be really transparent and honest with the team about the challenges we may have. But that can get passed on down the line and repeated until there’s a panic.”

But equally important was what she does not say. This is because she learned “how comforting what I say can be to the team, even if I’m not giving the answers. I thought at first that I always needed to be able to give them the solution, but I realized that actually that wasn’t needed at all. All that was needed was acknowledging the challenges, and showing that we’re on top of it and we get it.”

Ransom had an equally valuable insight when she talked about senior management and ethical values. She believes that “the best way to undermine a company’s values is to put people in leadership positions who are not adhering to the values. Then it completely starts to fall flat until you take action and move those people out, and then everyone gets faith in the values again. It can be restored so quickly. You just see that people are happier.”

I found the Ransom interview to be quite useful to the compliance practitioner. She makes clear that ‘tone at the top’ is only one key to instituting ethical values throughout your organization. It also means ‘tone in the middle’ and ‘tone at the bottom’. But she points out not only how to establish that tone but more importantly how to walk the walk of ethics and compliance. Her interview also showed the importance of establishing the values that you want in your company. By doing more than simply writing and then announcing them, through her work with small employee groups she was able to get buy-in from everyone. This was more than communication, this was collaboration. If you make your employees feel that they are a part of the process you will have greater success in your mission to bring ethical values to your organization.

============================================================================================

Please join Patrick Taylor, CEO of Oversight Systems and myself tomorrow afternoon for a webinar on Anti Corruption and On-going Transaction Monitoring. The webinar will be at 2 PM EST and is free. For registration and information click here.

============================================================================================

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Leadership Lessons for the Compliance Practitioner from Abraham Lincoln

The recent film about Abraham Lincoln has focused the nation’s attention once again on the President that many believe was our greatest President. In a recent article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Lincoln’s School of Management”, Nancy F. Koehn, a historian at the Harvard School of Business, wrote about Lincoln’s experience in drafting and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation as “one of the best ways to appreciate his strengths as a leader.” I found that Koehn’s article was relevant to the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or other compliance practitioner as they tackle the job of instituting or maintaining a culture of compliance throughout an organization.

Stay True to Your Compliance Vision

During the initial period of the Civil War, when the Union suffered a series of military defeats at Bull Run and particularly in the Seven Days’ Battles, Lincoln described his state “as nearly inconsolable as I could be and live.” Nevertheless, Lincoln persevered throughout these dark times due to his “resilience and commitment to preserve the Union.” From this, Koehn believes that business leaders must have the “ability to experience negative emotions without falling through the floorboards.” This can certainly be true in the compliance world. Just as Lincoln’s deep faith nurtured his vision, the CCO or compliance practitioner needs to stay true to their vision of compliance and ethics for their company.

Gather Information from a Wide Range of People

One of the things that Lincoln was good at was “how he gathered advice and information from a wide range of people, including those who did not agree with him. This is important in building a business because you have to listen to customers, employees, suppliers and investors, including those who are critical of what you are doing.” The compliance practice is one business area where there are no trade secrets on how to operate a business. There may be specific issues relating to investigations or similar areas but generally most CCOs and compliance practitioners can find information about the evolving world of best practices from other CCOs and compliance practitioners. Of course there is a wealth of written information available as well. But beyond other CCOs and compliance practitioners, there is information available from the business folks in a company. Just because a business person pushes back on some compliance mandate does not mean they are wrong. Just as Lincoln took advice from those who did not always agree with him, a CCO or compliance practitioner should consider the input that they receive from outside the compliance department.

The Ability to Shift Gears

Koehn wrote that “Lincoln’s ability to shift gears during hard times — without giving up his ultimate goal — is a vital lesson for leaders operating in today’s turbulence. When I teach the case, many executives comment on the importance of shaping one’s tactics to changing circumstances.” Lincoln began drafting the Emancipation Proclamation in late June or early July of 1863. He initially told his Cabinet that he would release it on January 1, 1863. Secretary of State William Seward suggested that the President wait for a Union victory before issuing the Proclamation, “lest it seem the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help” to which Lincoln agreed. But after the Union victory at Antietam, Lincoln made the Proclamation public. This dramatically changed the nature of the war from one to save the Union to create a new United States to “one in which slavery was permanently abolished.”

I think that the message for the CCO or compliance practitioner is that you have to be ready to shift gears. One of the frustrations in the compliance practice is that things are constantly in motion if not in flux. But if your commitment to ethics and compliance is the underlying basis of your position, that can be your driving force. As with Lincoln you must communicate your commitment to this larger purpose of doing business with compliance and ethics.

Think Before You Send the Letter or Hit the Send Button

Koehn told the story of Lincoln’s great disappointment after the Battle of Gettysburg when the victorious Union General, George C. Meade, did not follow after the defeated Confederate Army of General Robert E. Lee. Lincoln wrote a letter to Meade expressing his dissatisfaction for Meade’s failure to follow up his victory. Lincoln wrote, “Lee was within your easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war.” He added: “Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it.” But Lincoln did not send the letter. Indeed, “he placed it in an envelope labeled “To Gen. Meade, never sent or signed.” Koehn wrote “Imagine if e-mail had existed in Lincoln’s time and he had hit ‘send’ because he was distressed. The course of history might have taken a very different turn.”

This lesson is forbearance. With the instantaneous ability to communicate around the clock the CCO or compliance practitioner needs to consider the effect of their communications. Here I am not talking about stupid emails, although care should be taken not to engage in that FUBAR as well, but just as with Lincoln, a CCO or compliance practitioner need to face “the challenge of navigating their own and others’ emotions with forethought and consideration.” Sometimes, “the first action that comes to mind is not always the wisest.”

Communicating with Stakeholders

Koehn used the Gettysburg Address as a starting point for a discussion of the need for a CCO or compliance practitioner to communicate. If you desire to make a transformational change, you must communicate with your stakeholders. One thing that Lincoln assuredly did not do was lock himself in an ivory tower or the White House. Lincoln “traveled to battlefields to visit Union troops, and he held open “office” hours in the White House to receive interested citizens — and their countless requests.” Anyone who saw the movie “Lincoln” will remember the scene where he visited Union troops at a hospital, many of whom had lost their limbs in battle. I think that Koehn’s point is that he communicated his vision of what they were sacrificing for the War effort.

This point is absolutely critical for the CCO or compliance practitioner, you have got to put boots on the ground. Sitting in your office and doing the day-to-day work of compliance is simply not enough. First of all, your employee base will appreciate you much more if you get out into the field and will also communicate with you in a much more open manner. But, as important as the above are, this allows you to communicate your vision of doing business with ethics and compliance. This simply cannot be done from your home or corporate office. You must sell your vision to each and every stakeholder in your company.

Leadership Backbone

Koehn found that one of the things that business executives pointed to in any study of Lincoln as a leader was the “strength that Lincoln found to bear the death and destruction of the war and to weather intense opposition and still not relinquish his mission. If there is one point when Lincoln discovered his own leadership backbone, it was surely in conceiving and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and then committing himself and the country to its broader consequences.” It is important to rise to a challenge if one appears while you are on the watch. Another point Koehn stressed is that the leadership skills Lincoln showed demonstrated that it is the responsibility of a leader “to serve all of the people, and not just one’s self-interest. Lincoln knew that success is best when shared.”

For the CCO or compliance practitioner I think that these points bring up a dichotomy that you must deal with quite often. Sometimes you must say No. You must stand up and tell the business people that you are not doing that deal; you are not flying government officials and their wives to the US in business class or whatever the business guys want to do that violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). However, sometimes it is important to understand that you work for a company which is in business to make money. As a CCO or compliance practitioner you can use creative lawyering to satisfy the needs of the business without violating the FCPA.

The best example I can give you is one of last year’s Opinion Release, 12-01, which found that, under the facts and circumstances described in the Opinion Release, a royal family member was not a government official for the purposes of the FCPA. Prior to this Opinion Release I would have said 100 times out of 100 that a royal family member was always a foreign government official under the FCPA. But some very creative lawyer took a question presented to him by a business unit and came up with a way not to violate the FCPA.

Koehn ends her piece with “Lincoln was able to learn and grow amid great calamity. His story, like no other, demonstrates that leaders do not just make the moment; they meet it and, in the process, are changed by it.” I think that the same can be true for any CCO or compliance practitioner. You need to be able to learn and grow to do your job. I hope that your tenure will not be so calamitous as Lincoln’s but his leadership lessons should be guideposts and inspirations to anyone with a difficult job that must listen to a multiplicity of voices.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Grand Central Station, Mary Jo White and the End of No-Admission Settlements in SEC Cases?

Last week we celebrated one of the world’s great urban architectural marvels, the London Underground. This week we celebrate one a little closer to home. This week is the 100^th anniversary of Grand Central Station. In an article this week in the New York Times, (NYT), entitled “Looking Out on the Grand Central, and Looking Back on Saving It”, reporter Clyde Haberman interviewed Kent L. Barwick, former Executive Director of the Municipal Art Society, who was instrumental in the fight to save the Station in the 1970s. I knew about the legal fight that the City of New York had put up after its designation of the venerable landmark had been overturned by a state judge. This landmark case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and ended with a victory for the City of New York and the establishment of the right of a municipality to protect the public environment and its history by historic designation. What I did not know about this process was that one of its most active supporters was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, who supported the cause with time, money and effort. It was a classic effort of several processes moving forward on several fronts at once which led to this important legal decision and one of the most compelling journeys in landmark preservation.

This article came to mind when I read another article in the NYT, entitled “Make Them Pay (and Confess)” by reporter Gretchen Morgenson, about President Obama’s nomination of Mary Jo White to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Morgenson used the nomination of White to argue that the SEC has not been aggressive enough in its prosecution of financial wrongdoing during the first four years of the Obama Administration. She believes that the no-admission settlement is merely a “slap on the wrist” for companies who are guilty of securities violations involving fraud. I believe that this would include Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.

One of the techniques that she argues should be used more often and would have greater impact is requiring companies to admit to facts in settlement agreements. As most compliance practitioners know, the SEC has, in the past, allowed companies to settle without admitting or denying the findings which are the basis for the enforcement actions. Generally the SEC has supported this position arguing that by doing so this helps it “avoid costly, time-consuming litigation that would tax already-stretched resources.” In addition to time-consuming trials, there is always the possibility that the SEC could lose at trial. Further, by having quicker settlements, more victims would be getting restitution faster.

But Morgenson argues that a no-admission settlement does not really qualify as a punishment. In addition to having no precedential value going forward, because there are no facts admitted, she maintains that even the financial penalties are meaningless. This is because ultimately the fines and penalties are paid by the shareholders or the company’s insurance carrier. Such situations are “not much of a deterrent.”

Morgenson points out that Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was hired by Mrs. White when she ran the office, “has made it a priority to require admissions from defendants in civil fraud cases” brought by his office. Bharara has stated that “Such admissions are a way to hold defendants accountable, as well as being an important part of the public record.” By public record, Bharara means that plaintiffs can then use those admissions in shareholder derivative actions against corporations in tag along law suits. Do you think that the plaintiffs’ bar will be salivating over that prospect?

Morgenson discussed several reasons for the reluctance of the SEC to require such admissions of fact. The first and foremost is that you have to be ready, willing and able to go to trial. Bharara handles this in the Southern District with the following comment, “We’re not in the business of bluffing. When people know you’re not bluffing, they come to the table.” However, the SEC itself may not have this same attitude. Morgenson notes that “It won’t be easy to change the mind-set at the S.E.C. from one that regularly allows defendants to avoid culpability.” Other federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission also allow corporations to settle civil enforcement actions while not admitting to any facts.

Morgenson acknowledges that it will not be easy for the SEC to change its philosophy. Further, defendants will probably fight this change tooth and nail because they know that the cost of any settlement will increase exponentially if they make such admissions. The aforementioned plaintiffs’ bar will be waiting to jump on any corporations which make such settlements. Morgenson quotes William F. Gavin, Secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts and its securities regulator, who admitted that negotiating admissions of liability is challenging due to the fact that the cost of settlements will go up. His response, “Well, that’s kind of the idea – you did something wrong, you should be liable. You’re not going to change practices or behavior if there’s no penalty associated with it.”

Federal judges have also begun to question the use of SEC no-admission settlements. There is the quite well known example of Judge Rakoff and his initial rejection of the Citigroup settlement. A couple of other federal judges also initially rejected no-admission settlements but did so on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to enforce an injunction if there was a breach of the settlement by the defendant. Their concerns were addressed and they all eventually signed off on the SEC settlements. Now, however, Judge Richard Leon has rejected a SEC settlement with IBM, for FCPA books and records violations, as Judge Leon wanted IBM to report to the SEC if it sustained a FCPA violation going forward. IBM, with the SEC standing at its side on this point, said that to do so would be “too burdensome.” Judge Leon has set a hearing date of February 4, 2013 for IBM to present evidence of how they plan to collect the data to show that it is too burdensome. If IBM cannot do so, Judge Leon may well not approve the no-admission settlement.

Morgenson clearly wants Mary Jo White to engage in more and greater enforcement of financial fraud cases. She does not speak to FCPA cases specifically so it is not clear on whether her desire would also include FCPA books and records enforcement actions brought by the SEC when there is no criminal case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, if no-admission enforcement actions are no longer the norm in SEC financial fraud or other securities actions, this will probably also bleed over into FCPA actions. Judge Leon’s challenge to IBM and to the SEC may also portend an increasingly active judiciary which may delve into the substance of any FCPA settlement agreement with the SEC.

So for you New Yorkers out there, or any of you travelling through New York, I would suggest that the next time that you go through Grand Central Station look up with some wonder and awe at one of the true architectural marvels of the city. You may not do so as I did the first time I went through it but still take a few minutes to think that it was headed for the wrecking ball back in the 1970s, scheduled to be replaced by a skyscraper. Morgenson argues that the SEC should become more aggressive in its prosecution of financial fraud and with her prosecutorial background the agency may well be headed that way.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013