FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

December 16, 2014

The Eve of Destruction and Tone at the Top – You Are Who Say You Are

Barry McGuireIn 1965 the single Eve of Destruction was released. It was written by an 18 year old named Phil Sloan and was sung by former member of the New Christie Minstrels named Barry McGuire. To top it off, it was produced by Lou Adler. These facts, the story of the song, its recording and release were related in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article by Steve Dougherty entitled “Still on the ‘Eve of Destruction’. There are some singles that got under my skin when they were released and have remained there. This song was one of them. For me, the single most powerful line in the song was following:

Think of all the hate there is in Red China; And take a look around to Selma Alabama. 

Even as an eight year old I pondered the import that line. While we were taught that the Soviet Union might have wanted to defeat, conquer, and then enslave us; it was Red China that hated us so much they wanted to wipe us out of existence As we were taught back then that it was the Red Chinese who hated us; I wondered if there was that much hate in Selma Alabama. For if there was as much hate in Selma Alabama as there was in Red China, it had to be quite a lot of it.

I thought about Eve of Destruction and those lyrics about the hate in Selma, Alabama when I read about the conduct of a couple of senior managers recently. While they have both apologized for their conduct and comments that were clearly beyond the pale, I wondered that if you do say and act a certain way, if it really translates into who you really are. For the compliance practitioner, I wondered what such comments or actions might mean about a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or other senior management’s commitment to doing business in an ethical manner and in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act.

The first has been nicknamed Nut-Rage and involved the (now former) Korean Air executive Cho Hyun-ah (Heather Cho), who threw one of the greatest diva-worthy (or perhaps five year-old worthy) public temper tantrums of all-time. An article in the BBC Online, entitled “Former Korean Air executive apologises for ‘nut rage” ,reported that “Ms Cho was onboard a Korean Airlines plane departing from New York for Incheon last week when she demanded a crew member to be removed, after she was served nuts in a bag, instead of on a plate.” Also according an article in Slate, entitled “Flight Attendant Forced to Kneel for Serving Nuts in a Bag (Instead of a Dish) to Korean Air Executive” by Daniel Politi, Ms. Cho was not simply content to disrupt the plane’s service, air traffic control and airport scheduling, he wrote “Just when you thought the whole story about the Korean Air executive who went nuts over some nuts couldn’t get more ridiculous, the head of the cabin crew said he was forced to kneel to apologize about how a flight attendant served some macadamia nuts. Just in case you haven’t been following the case, Heather Cho, the daughter of the airline’s chairman and the executive in charge of in-flight service, forced a plane to return back to the gate at New York’s JFK airport last week after a flight attendant dared to bring her macadamia nuts in a bag and not a dish. Cho forced the head of the cabin crew to get off the plane.”

But the story did not end there. In another BBC article, entitled “Korean Air executive ‘made steward kneel over nut rage, the head of the cabin crew also reported that “Once home, officials from the airline came to his home to ask him to say that Ms Cho did not use abusive language and that he had voluntarily got off the plane.” Not to be outdone in this attempt to obstruct the truth and intimidate the witness, the BBC article also reported “Korean Air initially defended Ms Cho, noting that she was responsible for overseeing flight service in her role as vice-president, but the company later apologised.”

Unfortunately the second event is much closer to home here in the US and involves the Sony hacking scandal, which has been an unmitigated disaster for the company. In addition to all of the salary information, personal social security numbers and corporate intellectual properties that have been released, Sony’s Entertainment Chairman Amy Pascal sent some emails that can only at best be characterized as racially insensitive in nature. Jason L. Riley, in a WSJ entitled article “What Do You Call A Black President”, wrote that Pascal and Producer Scott Rudin engaged in the following email colloquy “Last year, Ms. Pascal and Mr. Rudin were invited to a fundraiser for Mr. Obama by Jeffrey Katzenberg, a DreamWorks Animation bigwig and major Democratic donor. Before the event, Ms. Pascal and Mr. Rubin joked about having to attend and what to say to the president. “What should I ask the president at this stupid Jeffrey breakfast,” wrote Ms. Pascal. “Should I ask him if he liked Django”, a 2012 film about slavery. Mr. Rudin responds with his own suggestion, “12 Years a Slave.” The two go back and forth naming movies they imagine the president enjoying—“The Butler,” “Think Like a Man,” “Ride Along”—all of which feature black actors or racial themes.” While Riley opines that this ­tete-a-tete is political in nature, my Southern upbringing reminds me of the line from Eve of Destruction to Think of all the hate there is in Red China; And take a look around to Selma Alabama. Maybe if McGuire were singing the song today, he would expand his geographic horizons.

While both Ms. Cho and Ms. Pascal have apologized for their actions and as noted, Korean Airlines has terminated Ms. Cho from her position. If you are what you say and show to others; what does all that mean when such people get into senior management positions? What does it say about Korean Airlines that it (1) fostered such a culture where the daughter of the President is given a job she clearly knows nothing about, (2) the same person humiliates an employee in public, (3) the Company tries to cover-up the incident by intimidating the employee, and (4) defends the actions of the daughter? Think that company has a culture of compliance? How about if a compliance incident is reported – would the company try to cover it up or thoroughly investigate it? Would the company try to intimidate witnesses to get them to change their recollections of events? How would you answer these questions if the incident in question were not over some nuts being served but over a safety issue?

As to Sony, how do you imagine minority employees might feel, given Pascal’s comments about the President of the United States? What about employees that might complain about discrimination in employment practices? If the head of the studio communicates in the manner about the President, what can a regular employee expect; similar sensitivity? Maybe the lesson for Sony and Pascal is simpler and much more direct, Don’t put stupid stuff in email. For even if your company is not hacked like Sony; in today’s world such emails uncovered in the context of a FCPA investigation might indicate a tone at the top which is not something you wish a regulator to see. But at the end of the day, you are you claim you are.

For a YouTube video clip of Barry McGuire singing Eve of Destruction, 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, 2014

December 12, 2014

Seamus Heaney and Compliance With a Seat at the Table

Seamus Heaney and beowulfI have long been fascinated with the Irish poet Seamus Heaney. I came to know him thought his 1999 translation of Beowulf. While I was aware that he had been awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Literature, I did not know his work as an Irish poet. However, this was rectified in a piece in the Times Literary Supplement (TLS), entitled “A stay against confusion – Seamus Heaney and the Ireland of his time”, by Roy Foster. In this piece he reviewed the evolution of Heaney’s poetry through the 1960s and 1990s. Foster believed that Heaney’s work in many ways mimicked the growth that “Irish intellectual as well as social and economic life”. Heaney began as a ‘nuts and bolts’ type of poet and moved to become a Yeatsian figure as the national poet of Ireland.

I thought about that growth and Foster’s article when I considered the question of what happens if you seek for something and then actually get it? For instance, you may have wanted a seat at the C-Suite table as a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and now you have one. What happens now, for instance in the situation where you find out that your company has decided to enter a new overseas market with a new product offering? The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who championed you coming onboard with the big boys (or perhaps big girls) team looks down and says, “We need an analysis from the compliance perspective by the end of the week?” Where do you begin?

Obviously there are some preconditions for success such as your company should have a product that you can make and sell overseas for a profit. Further, you should have the time, money and sophistication to develop an international distribution network and you have the home office infrastructure to support a truly international business. Finally, you should have a senior management with at least an appreciation of compliance challenges in the target, with the personnel, technological solutions and internal training to address and meet these challenges. As you begin to think through this assignment you fall back on the four basic questions of (1) Who will we sell to? (2) What are we going to sell? (3) Where will we sell? (4) How will we sell?

Who will we sell to?

For any anti-corruption analysis you need to begin here as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) applies to commercial relationships with foreign governments or instrumentalities such as state owned enterprises. Will your end using-direct customers be foreign governments or privately owned companies? What if your customers are distributors or other middlemen who will then sell to foreign governments or state owned enterprises? What about licenses; will you need special permits to sell to a foreign government or state owned enterprise or will you need some type of basic permit simply to transact business? If your company is subject to the UK Bribery Act this public/private distinction does not exist.

What are we going to sell?

What is the product or service you wish to take internationally? I will assume your company has done the market studies to ascertain it is a viable commercial concept. If it a product, is it a complete or partial product? Will you manufacture here in the US and only sell internationally or will you manufacture abroad as well? If it is here in the US, what about spare parts and accessories, will you need to obtain any licenses overseas? What about your technology, will that component require any licenses? If you will manufacture outside the corporate offices in the US, how will you assure quality in your supply chain? Conversely, if you manufacture in the US, do your supplier agreements allow you to resell outside the US?

Where will we sell? 

This question may seem more important for export control issues; however it is also important in the anti-corruption world. Obviously this is because certain geographic areas are more prone to corruption than others. A starting place might be the Transparency International-Corruption Perception Index but you can also use tools such as the recently released TRACE Matrix which provides a much broader assessment of corruption indices and give you additional insight into a fuller panoply of corruption risks in a country. In addition to the basic corruption analysis you need to ascertain whether you can even sell your products in a new country, either because of US export regulations or the end using jurisdictions laws. You should also focus on the business culture of a country and whether it is compatible in doing business in compliance with relevant anti-corruption legislation. This will also help you in your search to find any local business partners. 

How are you going to sell?

This is one of the most important questions you can ask under a FCPA analysis. It is because well over 90% of all FCPA enforcement actions involve third parties. If this is your first international sales effort, your company probably does not have an international based employee sales force. This means you will most probably need in-country partners for your target markets. Some of the most basic sales arrangements for third parties are as follows:

  1. Agent/Sales Representative – This person or entity is an independent third party from the company. Compensation is usually commission based or combined with a periodic fee plus commission. It is generally viewed as the highest risk from the anti-corruption perspective but you will have a direct relationship with the end-using customer.
  2. Distributor/Retailer – This person or entity is an independent third party from the company. Your company will sell to the distributor/retailer who then resells your product. You will have less visibility into the end user and hence a greater export control risk. Consignment is a variation on this model but if you are warehousing you will need to be aware of other US rules such as revenue recognition under US GAAP or local, indigenous rules on storage and warehousing.
  3. Consultant – This is also an independent third party who is paid a periodic fee. The fee can be more easily assessed for an hourly or service based rather than simply a commission based fee structure.

There are some other sales arrangements that you may whish to consider. You can acquire a local business and run it as your own company. Of course if you do so, you may buy all of these liabilities, both known and unknown. You can joint venture with another local company. Here you may have the dual problems of less actual control yet the same amount of potential exposure, particularly under the FCPA if you fail to perform the requisite pre-acquisition due diligence and allow any illegal conduct to continue going forward. You can issue a manufacturing license to an in-country manufacturer and allow them to make and then sell your product using your technology. Finally, you can issue a brand license where you license an existing company to put your brand name on your product manufactured by another entity. Of course if you use any of these types of arrangements you will need to go through a full third party management cycle; consisting of a business justification, questionnaire, due diligence, contract and management thereafter.

From the internal control perspective you will need to make sure you have several key compliance related controls in place. This will include the aforementioned vetting of all customers and third parties; appropriate controls over each transaction, including both quotes and contracts; empowered and non-conflicted employees; and finally training and self-auditing. You will need separate controls over payment terms and payment mechanisms and controls to align shipping and export controls. Finally, do not forget the omnipresent segregation of duties and control over the vendor master file.

Lastly, you should focus on your high-risk points in any of the above. These include your full vetting and management of third parties. You should pay attention as to how you became aware of these third party sales representatives. You will also need to pay attention to your freight forwarders and other export control representatives. You will need to be vigilant going forward for outright bribes paid in either cash or other values such as free products, lavish travel, gifts and entertainment, especially if the travel has no business purpose.

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, 2014

December 3, 2014

Sherlock Holmes and Innovation in the Compliance Function, Part III – The Hound of the Baskervilles

Hound of the BaskervillesToday we honor Conan Doyle’s third Sherlock Homes novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles. The novel, originally serialized in The Strand from 1901 to 1902, is generally recognized by Sherlockians as the premier Doyle work regarding his fictional detective. Interestingly, Bertram Fletcher Robinson, a 30-year-old journalist, assisted Doyle with the plot for this novel.

Doyle’s idea for the story derived from the legend of Richard Cabell, which was a tale of a hellish hound and a cursed country squire. Squire Cabell was a hunting man and who was described as a “monstrously evil man”. He had a reputation “for, amongst other things, immorality and having sold his soul to the Devil. He was also alleged to have murdered his wife. As the story goes, Cabell was laid to rest in ‘the sepulchre’, but night of his interment saw a phantom pack of hounds come baying across the moor to howl at his tomb. From that night onwards, he could be found leading the phantom pack across the moor, usually on the anniversary of his death. If the pack were not out hunting, they could be found ranging around his grave howling and shrieking. In an attempt to lay the soul to rest, the villagers built a large building around the tomb, and to be doubly sure a huge slab was placed. To add good measure, the folklore of the county where the tale occurs, Devon, includes tales of a fearsome supernatural dog known as the Yeth hound.”

The Hound of the Baskervilles was a tale that appeared to have supernatural implications. Yet, upon closer examination, a more temporal solution was determined. I thought of this novel when reading the article entitled “Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days” by Scott D. Anthony, David S. Duncan and Pontus M. A. Siren in the December 2014 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). I found their insights quite useful for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner who might be faced with implementing or enhancing a compliance solution for an organization as the authors’ insights could also be used to help a CCO or compliance practitioner move a compliance function down into the DNA of an organization to make compliance a more standard process for doing everyday commercial operations.

The authors recognize that innovative ideas get brought to the marketplace often through “individual heroism and a heavy dose of serendipity” but companies need a mechanism to “make the process more reliable and repeatable without making major organizational changes.” To do so, they suggested a solution they call the “minimum viable innovation system” which can bring an innovation to fruition within 90 days. I have adapted their system for the compliance function.

Day 1 To 30 – Define Your Innovation Buckets

Initially the authors note that innovations can either be inward or outward facing. “In one are innovations that extend today’s business, either by enhancing existing offerings or by improving internal operations. In the other are innovations that generate new growth by reaching new customer segments or new markets, often through new business models.” This is also true in the compliance function as your compliance program relates to your own internal clients, customers and your third parties. It all begins with two steps (1) Determine between compliance goals and current operations; and (2) determine broad categories of compliance solutions which could fill that gap. If your gap is large, you might sub-divide your compliance efforts so that “you can map them to different directions for future [compliance] growth.” Per the authors recommendations you probably should not take on more than three as an initial effort.

Day 20 To 50 – Zero in on a Few Strategic Opportunity Areas

In this time frame, the authors believe that you meet with your customer base to “probe unmet needs”. As one class of your compliance customers will be your internal employee base, you can use a wide number of mechanisms to accomplish this, including town meetings, compliance focus groups or meetings with individual employees. You should also look outside your company by engaging in benchmarking through investigation on new developments in your industry and in the compliance space. This is also a time when you can best use big data through an appropriate data analytic approach to spots trends in your organization that might present opportunities for compliance innovation.

You should synthesize this down and the authors recommend the following, “lock the members of the senior leadership team in a room for an afternoon, share the findings, and instruct them not to leave until they have identified three strategic opportunity areas that each combine the following”: (1) A compliance function that no one is addressing very well; (2) Enable a technological solution that will enable your business unit to perform a compliance function much more easily, cheaply, or conveniently, or a change in the compliance landscape that is greatly intensifying the need for that job; and (3) Incorporate some special capability of your company that will give you an advantage in seizing this compliance opportunity.

Day 20 To 70 – Form a Small Dedicated Team to Develop the Innovations

Here the authors suggest three steps. First, dedicate a handful of the company to developing the compliance innovations. Second, work with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to eliminate “zombie” compliance projects. Third is to develop a process checklist.

Everyone in a corporation has a day job. This is particularly true for a CCO or compliance practitioner. While there is no need for your compliance innovation team to be particularly large, the authors suggest that it have the capability “to handle at least two ideas once, since there will be inevitable course corrections and failure.” The authors define zombie projects as “walking undead that shuffle along slowly but aren’t headed anywhere.” Their reference hails to both the elimination of the AMC show The Walking Dead and the zombie banks from the Japanese financial crisis of the 1990s. The reference to the AMC television offering is that these projects are dead on arrival for a variety of reasons. The reference to the Japanese financial crisis is that because as long as these zombie projects exist, they will consume compliance innovation resources. Here the authors suggest identifying and deleting projects that hare neither core nor strategic.

Developing a checklist is a critical process step because it requires you to create a protocol to make sure you do not omit any critical step throughout the process. In order to develop this checklist, the authors suggest asking the following questions. (1) Is your compliance innovation team “spearheaded by a small, focused team of people who have relevant experience or are prepared to learn as they go?” (2) Has your compliance innovation team spent enough time directly with your business function to develop an understanding of what they can use going forward? (3) Was appropriate benchmarking performed? (4) Has your compliance innovation team defined the internal customer(s) and paths for reaching others? (5) Is your compliance innovation team’s idea “consistent with a strategic opportunity area in which the company has a compelling advantage?” (6) Does your compliance innovation team have a plan for testing? Does each test have a clear objective, a hypothesis, specific predictions, and a tactical execution plan?

Day 45 To 90 – Create a Mechanism to Shepherd Projects

During this time frame, the authors suggest two major goals for oversight. First is that the CCO needs to select and train compliance leaders to oversee the innovation team and to establish oversight rules. The group of compliance leaders who will have the autonomy to make decisions about starting, stopping, or redirecting compliance innovation projects. You should take care not to simply replicate the current executive committee, because if you do, it will be too easy for group members to default to their corporate-planning mindset or to let day-to-day business creep into discussions about compliance innovations meant to fulfill long-term goals.

The authors turned to the world of Venture Capital (VC) funding to help this group work on compliance initiatives. (1) There can be disagreement about which projects to move forward, your committee does not require unanimity. (2) The group should set a threshold monetary level that the project team(s) can spend without having to come back for every funding request. (3) Your compliance innovation projects should not be locked into a 3/6 month or other budget cycles. It may take time but when the time for review or a GO/NO GO decision to be made the oversight team needs to be ready to convene and make a decision. From this point you should be ready to pressure test your compliance innovation.

The authors’ formulation is an excellent way for a CCO or compliance practitioner to think through the process to design and create innovation in your compliance function. Just as Holmes methodically worked through the clues in front of him (and some behind him) in the The Hound of the Baskervilles you can use this protocol to assist you moving forward.

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, 2014

 

 

 

 

December 2, 2014

Sherlock Holmes and Innovation in the Compliance Function, Part II – The Sign Of Four

Sign of FourToday we honor Conan Doyle’s second Sherlock Homes novel, The Sign of Four. The novel was published in 1890 but the story is set in 1888. The story entails a complex plot involving service in East India Company, India, the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a stolen treasure, and a secret pact among four convicts and two corrupt prison guards. It presents the detective’s drug habit and humanizes him in a way that had not been done by Doyle to-date. It also has a rather happy ending as it introduces us to Dr. Watson’s future wife, Mary Morstan to whom he proposes at the end of the novel.

The Sign of Four was an intricate tale with many strands woven throughout. I thought of this novel when reading the article entitled “Leading Your Team into the Unknown” by Nathan Furr and Jeffrey H. Dyer in the December 2014 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). I found their insights quite useful for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner who might be faced with implementing or enhancing a compliance solution for an organization. But equally interesting, were that the authors’ insights could also be used to help a CCO or compliance practitioner help move a compliance function down into the DNA of an organization to make compliance a more standard process for doing everyday commercial operations.

The authors posit that “Innovation is at heart a process of discovery, and so the role of the person leading it is to set other people down a path, not to short-circuit it by jumping to a conclusion right at the start. To lead innovation, you don’t have to be the next Steve Jobs, nor do you need to guess the future. Rather, you must carve out the mental space within which the innovation process can be carried out. How? First, by setting the expectation that innovation will push boundaries. Fashion designers often include very bold designs in their lines to inspire customers to try more-flamboyant styles. . .You need not go so far. You can push boundaries just as dramatically by demonstrating a willingness to reimagine some of your organization’s most fundamental assumptions about products, customers, and business models.”

For the CCO or compliance practitioner, I think this means that innovation in the compliance function requires a different approach to leadership than the standard command and control or even collaborative approach. For a successful CCO or compliance practitioner this is accomplished by leading compliance integration into the DNA of a company through example and not simply dictated. The authors suggest, “by asking questions rather than making decisions; clearing a path to the unknown for the innovative team rather identifying the end goal; and give people the right kind of time, the right constraints and the right tools” to come up with a solution. I found the authors implications for such an approach appropriately inspiring, “Innovative leaders can create a sustainable competitive advantage not through superiority of a particular invention but by creating an organization that can learn from mistakes faster, more efficiently and more consistently than competitors do.”

The authors provide what they call “A Comprehensive Approach to Innovation” which I have adapted for the CCO or compliance practitioner to facilitate innovation in the compliance function. It consists of four steps. 

  1. Generate Insights. The authors state, “Use questioning, observational, and networking skills to search far and wide for broad insights into problems that may be worth solving.” As a CCO or compliance practitioner, you can push compliance boundaries just as dramatically by demonstrating a willingness to reimagine some of your organization’s most fundamental assumptions about products, customers, and business models. But it means getting out there and seeking input from those outside your direct compliance function.
  1. Identify an Important Problem. Here the authors recommend “Through direct observation look for an unsolved problem or an unfilled emotional or social need that enough people have for the opportunity to be worth pursuing.” This also means giving your team an opportunity to synthesize the issues. You will need to dedicate both resources and time for the process to run its course. I recognize that all corporate employees have a day job so you will need to set aside specific time for such issue identification. In addition to providing resources and time, you will need to provide your innovation team support by removing the inevitable organizational barriers, which will be thrown up in their path.
  1. Develop the Solution. The authors advocate constructing prototypes so rather than building a complete compliance solution, quickly construct a set of simple prototypes of many different compliance tools. For each, start with a theoretical example, if that looks promising internally, move to a virtual prototype to test throughout a pre-selected business unit or process. Start with a visual representation, which could be just a drawing; next move to testing a minimum viable prototype with internal consumers of the compliance solution through the simplest, quickest physical version of the offering you can devise. Finally, pilot test the full-blown compliance solution with a wider audience, including trusted and integral third parties to your organization.
  1. Devise the Business Model. Finally, the authors note that once you have worked out the offering, apply the same experimental approach to developing and testing the components of the business model, including approaches to implementation. They suggest that there are three values to such an approach. The first is that you will have generated “insight value-that is, the insight into the unknown that comes from reducing uncertainty.” The second is “option value-the option upon resolving an unknown, to pursue, alter, or abandon a course of action.” The third is “strategic value” which is both the value derived by your internal compliance consumers but also that of all the knowledge you will have gained throughout the course of the project; what worked and what did not work and, more importantly, why.

As a lawyer who moved into compliance, I initially thought that anti-corruption compliance was a function of telling everyone the rules and having them followed. Some companies are still at this stage of compliance. However, if there is one over-riding theme that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has communicated over the years it is that your compliance function needs to constantly evolve. It certainly must evolve as the corruption risks your company encounters develop but also it should also mature as your compliance program grows and becomes more ingrained in your organization. Innovation is not a concept that comes naturally to lawyers who are generally trained to study the past (i.e. read case law precedent) and apply it going forward. The idea of innovation simply does not jive with what many believe should be a static list of rules and regulations that businesses should operate under. However, as compliance moves into its next phase and becomes the best practice of a well-run business, innovation will become more of a focus.

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, 2014

December 1, 2014

Sherlock Holmes and Innovation in the Compliance Function, Part I – A Study In Scarlet

A Study in ScarletToday begins a week of double themed blog-posts. First I am back with an homage to Sherlock Holmes, for it was in the magazine Beeton’s Christmas Annual that the characters Sherlock Holmes and Watson were introduced to the world in 1887, in the short story A Study in Scarlet. The second theme will be innovation in the compliance department. I will take some recent concepts explored in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and apply them to innovation and development of your compliance function. I hope that you will both enjoy my dual themed week and find it helpful.

Today I begin with the first novel, A Study in Scarlet. There are two items of note that I learnt in researching this work. The first is that it was written in 1886 and even Conan Doyle had trouble finding a publisher for what went on to become the most famous detective character of all-time. The second was the title. I had always thought it referred to the color of blood but it turns out that it comes from a speech given by Holmes to Dr. Watson on the nature of his work, in which he describes the story’s murder investigation as his “study in scarlet”: “There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.” Furthermore, a ‘study’ is a preliminary drawing, sketch or painting done in preparation for a finished piece.

I thought Doyle’s first work would provide an excellent entrée into today’s topic, that being leadership in the compliance function. While many compliance departments may have begun more as a command and control function, set up by lawyers to comply with anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or others; this type of leadership model is now becoming outmoded in today’s world. It is not that employees are interested in the ‘why’ they should do business ethically and in compliance with such laws but it is more that power is shifting inside corporations. In a HBR article, entitled “Understanding “New Power””, authors Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms explore how leadership dynamics are changing and what companies might be able to do to harness them. I found them to have some excellent insights, which a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) moving to CCO 2.0 or compliance practitioner might be able to garner for a compliance function.

The authors begin by noting that ‘new power’ differs from ‘old power’ in a bi-lateral dimension of intersection. This intersection is between the models used to exercise power and the values which are now embraced. It is the understanding of this shift in power, which will facilitate the compliance function moving more to the forefront of a business integration role. The new power models are fourfold. Under sharing and shaping a company is much more integrated with its customers and supply chain. Second is funding which continues this integration by adding a vertical component of funding, whether equity positions or some other type of funding. Third is producing in which “participants go beyond supporting or sharing other people’s efforts and contribute their own.” Finally, there is co-ownership, which is the most decentralized, pushing participation down to the lowest or most basic levels.

But beyond these new power systems, the authors believe that “a new set of values and beliefs is being forged. Power is not just flowing differently; people are feeling and thinking differently about it.” The authors call them “feedback loops” which “make visible the payoffs of peer-based collective action and endow people with a sense of power. In doing so, they strengthen norms around collaboration”.

The authors lay out five new values. They include the area of governance where the authors note, “new power favors informal, networked approaches to governance and decision making.” Next is in the area of collaboration where the authors believe that this new power value rewards “those who share their own ideas, spread those of others, or build on existing ideas to make them even better.” The next new value is DIO or do it ourselves. Under this value, there is a “belief in amateur culture in arenas that used to be characterized by specialization and professionalization.” Next is transparency which, while not a new concept, says that more permanent transparency between business and social lives will lead to a “response in kind from our institutions and leaders who are challenged to rethink the way they engage with their constituencies” specifically including their employee base. The final new value identified by the authors is affiliation, which means that new and younger employees are less like to “forge decades-long relationships with institutions.”

The authors have three prescriptions that I found could be useful for the CCO or compliance practitioner to incorporate into a mature and evolving compliance program moving forward. Compliance functions need to “engage in three essential tasks: (1) assess their place in a shifting power environment, (2) channel their harshest critic, and (3) develop a mobilization capacity.

Assess where you are

This prong is quite close to something compliance practitioners are comfortable with in their role, a risk assessment. However the authors suggest that the assessment be turned inward so you should assess the compliance function on this “new power compass—both where you are today and where you want to be in five years.” You can benchmark from other companies in responding to this query. Internally, you can begin this process with a conversation about new realities and how the compliance function should perform. More importantly such an assessment can help you identify the aspects of their core models and values that should not be changed.

Incorporate business unit interests

The authors note, “Today, the wisest organizations will be those engaging in the most painfully honest conversations, inside and outside, about their impact.” However, I think this question should be asked first by the CCO or compliance practitioner. For it is not only what you are doing to work with your business units but more importantly what are you doing to incorporate their concerns and suggestions into your compliance regime. If you are going to ask the business unit to be a significant partner or better yet be your business partner, you will need to have a mechanism in place to engage your business unit so there can be an inflow of input before the compliance function has an output of requirements. As the authors write, “This level of introspection has to precede any investment in any new power mechanisms” to which I would add any successful compliance function.

Mobilize your capacity

Here I suggest you consider contracted third parties and other third parties such as joint venture (JV) partners as an avenue through which the compliance function can bring greater benefits to an organization. I have often heard compliance expert Mary Jones talk about her training of her company’s third parties and how thankful they were that when she, Global Industries Director of Compliance, would personally travel to their locations and put on in-person training. Her efforts to travel to their locations, spend the money required to do so not only directly strengthened Global Industries’ compliance function but created allies for her efforts by giving these suppliers the information and training they needed to comply with their customers requirements. By reaching out in this manner, Global Industries used its contracted third party suppliers to create a stronger company compliance program.

As the anti-corruption compliance profession matures, it will become more a component of a company’s business function. This means less of a lawyer’s top down mentality of do it because I said to do it, to more collaboration. It also means, as with the premier of Sherlock Holmes in A Study in Scarlet that something new is on the horizon and it could be here for quite sometime to come.

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, 2014

 

November 26, 2014

Doing Business in India – Corruption Risks and Responses

IndiaRecently the US law firm of Foley and Lardner LLP and MZM Legal, Advocates & Legal Consultants in India jointly released a white paper, entitled “Anti-Bribery and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guide for U.S. Companies Doing Business in India”. For any compliance practitioner it is a welcome addition to country specific literature on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act and other anti-corruption legislation and includes a section on India’s anti-corruption laws and regulations.

FCPA Enforcement Actions for Conduct Centered in India

Under the FCPA, several notable US companies have been through enforcement actions related to conduct in India. Although not monikered as a ‘Box Score’ the authors do provide a handy chart which lists the companies involved, a description of the conduct and fine/penalty involved.

Company Description Disposition (in USD)
Pride International Payment made for favorable administrative judicial decision regarding customs issues $56.1 million
Tyco International German subsidiary paid third parties to secure contracts; payments recorded as commissions $26 million
Diageo Subsidiary made payments to government official responsible for purchase/authorization of Diageo’s products in India $16.4 million
Textron Subsidiaries paid foreign officials to secure contracts; characterized as commission and consulting fees $5.05 million
Oracle Corporation Oracle distributor allegedly created “slush” fund to pay third parties $2 million
Dow Chemical Company Payments made to India Central Insecticides Board to expedite registration of products $325,000

India Anti-Bribery/Anti-Corruption Laws 

The authors identify the principal anti-corruption legislation in India as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), which focuses on bribery of public servants. They go on to state, “Bribery under the PCA includes any “gratification” that a public servant receives other than his/her legal remuneration. Gratification constituting a bribe would include anything intended to motivate, influence, or reward a public servant for performing (or forbearing performance of) an official act, or for showing “favour or disfavour” to any person, or for rendering any service or disservice to a public servant.” However, there are other laws, in addition to the PCA, which govern such issues. These include “specific public servants’ Conduct Rules, which set specific guidelines on the value of gifts that may be accepted in furtherance of local or religious customs (where no reciprocal action is expected and where the public servant has no current or expected future official dealings with the gift giver). The guidelines for permissible gifts are based on the public servant’s rank and service classification and broadly range between 500 – 7,500 Rupees (approximately $8 – $120 U.S. dollars).”

Corruption Risks in India

Corruption risks in India are generally perceived to be high due to its “complex administrative and bureaucratic environment”. Similarly the FCPA Professor would say there are a high number of barriers to trade. Coming at it from a different direction, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would say the risk is high because of the number of licenses and permits required. More pruriently, I would say this leads to more folks having their collective hand out looking to speed things up. Indeed, in the recently released TRACE Matrix India comes in at 185th out of 197 countries listed, with a corruption score of 80, based largely on its score of 92 in the highest weighted category of “Interactions with Governments”.

a. Licenses and Permits

The authors identify that “a host of regulatory hurdles exists in India, including the need to obtain permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals and to pay various application and registration fees. These types of low-level transactions provide opportunities for bribery. Payments made in such transactions — whether in cash or gifts — may appear minimal (by U.S. standards) and may seem harmless, but they can nonetheless result in violations of U.S. and/or India law.” They go on to list some “Examples of Problematic Conduct” around this issue they identify the following:

  • Paying (or providing some other benefit to) a customs official to bypass inspection or overlook incorrect or incomplete paperwork;
  • Paying a local tax regulator to overlook errors or inconsistencies in filings;
  • Paying an official to expedite the processing of a permit or license;
  • Paying a utilities provider to reduce billings; and
  • Paying a local health and safety regulator to overlook code violations.

b. Gifts, Travel and Entertainment

In the area of gifts, travel and entertainment, the authors state that “companies run the risk of triggering the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws if their marketing and entertainment expenditures cross a line into conduct that could be characterized as bribery or lends to the appearance of attempting to induce a breach of trust or impartiality on the part of the recipient…the various conduct rules for public servants in India establish specific guidelines for accepting gifts and hospitality, and, for some public servants, the maximum permissible gift value may be as low as 500 rupees ($8 U.S. dollars). Companies operating in India should thus familiarize themselves with these guidelines before providing even what may seem to be a modest gift or hospitality.” Some examples of problematic conduct identified is these areas are as follows:

  • Paying for extravagant meals, drinks, and entertainment in connection with a visit by a foreign official;
  • Paying for “side trips” so that foreign officials can visit tourist attractions (e.g., Walt Disney World, Las Vegas) while in the United States;
  • Providing per-diems or “pocket money” for foreign officials to use during a visit;
  • Paying for a foreign official’s spouse or family to accompany the foreign official on a trip; and
  • Providing foreign officials with excessive gifts for birthdays, weddings, holidays, or other events.

c. Third Parties

This is always recognized as the highest FCPA risk and in India it is no different. More importantly, it may be even greater in this country because “Navigating India’s extensive regulations and bureaucracy often requires U.S. companies to rely on third parties, such as agents, brokers, consultants, sales representatives, distributors, and other business partners…The PCA similarly criminalizes bribery through third parties as a direct violation by the third party and as an abetment violation by the company on whose behalf the bribe is being made.” The key is subject any third party to rigorous due diligence and closely manage the relationship after the contract is signed. If a Red Flag appears at any point in the third party lifecycle it should be evaluated and cleared. The authors provide a handy list of some examples of Red Flags regarding third parties when doing business in India. They include:

  • A third party is listed in databases reporting known corruption risks (e.g., World Bank List of Debarred Firms) or has been previously investigated for, charged with, or convicted of corruption or other ethics violations;
  • A foreign official has specifically requested that a certain third party be involved in the company’s transaction or business;
  • An agent or consultant holds himself out as someone with close connections to an important minister or minister’s aide;
  • A third party does not appear to have sufficient resources, real estate/infrastructure, or experience to perform the requested tasks;
  • A third party asks the company to provide it with unreasonably large discounts, excessive commissions, reimbursements, or contingency fees; and
  • A third party requests payment in an irregular or convoluted manner (e.g., cash, offshore bank account, payments to another company, over/under invoicing).

Managing Corruption Risk in India

In their concluding section, the authors relate solid risk management tools tailored to the Indian market. It all starts with robust standards and procedures. From there you should train not only your employees on what may be illegal conduct and how to resist requests for bribes but also your third parties. Annual certifications are an important tool for not only risk management but also communication about anti-corruption expectations. Your compliance program should devote the appropriate level of personnel and resources for your operations in India. Finally, a robust reporting mechanism is key but equally critical is your response after any information comes to light. It must be thoroughly investigated, quickly remedied and reported as appropriate.

The Foley & Lardner/MZM Legal white paper is a welcome addition to literature about country specific risks, remedies and responses. A copy of the full white paper can be obtained by clicking 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, 2014

November 25, 2014

How to Avoid a Mousetrap – Resource Reductions in Your Compliance Function

The MousetrapOn this day, 62 years ago, “The Mousetrap”, a murder-mystery written by Agatha Christie, opened at the Ambassadors Theatre in London. The crowd-pleasing whodunit has become the longest continuously running play in history, with more than 10 million people attending its more than 20,000 performances. The play opened with Sir Richard Attenborough and his wife, Sheila Sim, in the cast. To date, more than 300 actors and actresses have appeared in the roles of the eight characters. David Raven, who played “Major Metcalf” for 4,575 performances, is in the “Guinness Book of World Records” as the world’s most durable actor, while Nancy Seabrooke is noted as the world’s most patient understudy for 6,240 performances, or 15 years, as the substitute for “Mrs. Boyle.” The play is still going strong in London’s West End and at theaters across the world today.

The Mousetrap has survived the vicissitudes of one of the most fickle phenomenons known, the theater going public. Unfortunately, not all businesses can make the same claim to longevity, either in revenue sourcing or spending. For instance the energy industry is now facing a future with the price of oil at something currently around $80 per barrel. This has already led to proposed contraction in the energy services industry with the number 2 company, Halliburton Energy Services, buying the number 3 company, Baker Hughes. Halliburton has already announced they hope to achieve financial benefits through elimination of redundancies in the combined organizations.

Given this new thread of economics going through the energy industry, I wondered what it might all mean for a company’s compliance function? I thought about this question when I read a recent article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR), entitled “How Not to Cut Health Care Costs”, by Robert S. Kaplan and Derek A. Haas. Their article posited that many “cost-cutting initiatives actually lead to higher costs and lower-quality care.” This is because “Administrators typically look to reduce line-item expenses and increase the volume of patients seen.” But the authors opine that this is not the best way to cut costs or even deliver a superior health care service. They advocate, “Administrators, in collaboration with clinicians, should examine all the costs incurred over the care cycle for a medical condition. This will uncover multiple opportunities to benchmark, improve, and standardize processes in way that lower total costs and delver better care.”

Just as health care providers deliver services, so do compliance practitioners. This led me to view their article with the angle of a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner that has been told to cut head count or resources. First, and foremost, is to keep in mind the direction provided in the FCPA Guidance, which is well thought out and considered, and will be viewed with a better eye by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they take a look at your compliance program after it has been cut. And, as with everything else that is Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or any other anti-corruption compliance program related, you must remember the most important aspect, that being Document, Document, and Document. Whatever you do, you should document that you have studied it, considered it and then articulated a reason for taking the steps you decided upon. This means you should take the authors advice and not simply reduce “line-item expenses on their P&L statements” but you should “consider the best mix of resources needed to deliver excellent [compliance] outcomes in an efficient manner.” To do so, the authors examine five cost cutting mistakes, which I will adapt for the compliance practitioner.

Mistake #1 – Cutting Back on Support Staff

Just as in the medical services-delivery world, the compliance arena support staff are a key component of a compliance program’s efficiency. Cutting such functions requires CCOs or others to spend more time on administrative matters and less on actually doing compliance. This can be up to ten times more costly for more senior compliance managers to perform such tasks than properly trained, efficient administrative staff. Arbitrary constraints or cuts in personnel spending, uninformed by the need to deliver high quality compliance outcomes can not only lead to a diminution in the compliance product but very dissatisfied internal compliance consumers.

Mistake #2 – Underinvestiging in Space and Equipment

While this is perhaps more self-evident in the health care services industry, I would argue that it applies to technology in the compliance arena. Underinvesting in technology can lead to a lowering of productivity for a company’s most expensive compliance resource; its compliance group. Further, once technology has been used in one area, the marginal cost to utilize it in a second area is often much lower than the initial cost. A case in point is translation services to translate your Code of Conduct, compliance policy and procedures into languages other than English. After the initial cost, the marginal cost for each update you make is considerably lower. Moreover, the authors point to the “folly of attempting to cut costs by holding down spending in isolated categories. More often than not, much higher costs soon show up in another category.” The key is to measure the costs of all resources used by the compliance function so that the appropriate trade-offs can be made. 

Mistake #3 – Focusing Narrowly on Procurement Prices

Often executives simply say that an overhead function, such as compliance, must “aim their reductions” at outside vendors. This may lead to more negotiations over suppliers’ pricings or attempts to negotiate high discounts. However the author’s note that this blanket approach often fails to take into account the precise mix of goods and services that a compliance department may use. Further, this gross approach focuses too narrowly on negotiating the price and fails to examine how the compliance function might actually consume goods and services from outside vendors. The authors note, “As a result, they miss potential large opportunities to lower spending.”

Mistake #4 – Maximizing Throughput

This mistake revolves around simply trying to get professionals to work faster. However, as with physicians, this mistake “is not sensitive to the impact of seemingly arbitrary standards on [compliance] outcomes.” Interesting what may be true is quite the opposite that a compliance function can receive greater overall productivity by spending more time with fewer problems. This is because by spending less time with problems up front, a compliance professional may be able to bring greater risk management techniques to bear, which can work to prevent or even proscribe a compliance issue rather than simply detecting it after something has occurred. The more time the compliance function can spend in counseling, monitoring or performing in-person training, the more benefits will be paid off from preventing compliance issues from becoming FCPA violative events.

Mistake #5 – Failing to Benchmark and Standardize

Benchmarking is recognized as a key tool of the compliance practitioner. However it is rarely thought of a cost-cutting tool or a cost-efficiency mechanism. Many compliance practitioners can only see the no ‘one-size-fits-all’ proscription which blocks them from seeing what other compliance practitioners might be doing to achieve similar results. If other companies can be used to determine a range of compliance techniques and strategies, perhaps they could also be consulting for the standardization of certain processes or procedures, which might lead to greater cost efficiencies. One constant about compliance is that there are no trade secrets in compliance. A constant about compliance professionals is that they will always share information on their program. Use the knowledge of others to help you deliver a compliance solution in a more cost-effective approach.

The compliance profession is maturing. Costs and inefficiencies can be the result of “mismatched capacity, fragmented delivery, suboptimal outcomes and inefficient use of technology.” In their penultimate paragraph the authors state, “The current practice of managing and cutting costs from a P&L statement does nothing to address those problems.” Unlike the theater version of The Mousetrap, compliance will experience ups and downs in funding similar to other corporate overhead functions. However, such pinch points might present opportunities for the compliance professional to review and assess a company’s compliance program and come up with ways to make it run more efficiently. For if it is true that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to compliance; it is equally true that you are only limited by your imagination. But document how you got there and why and be prepared to defend how you identified your risk, coupled with your management of them.

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, 2014

 

November 24, 2014

The FCPA Guidance: Still Going Strong at Two

Brithday TwoOne of the great things about Sunday afternoon is that Mike Volkov posts his Monday blog, when I usually have time to read it when I get the email notification that it is up. Yesterday he wished the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) jointly released 2012 A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Guidance) a belated Happy 2nd Birthday and bemoaned the fact no one else had done so. Inspired, and somewhat chagrined by Volkov, I decided to blog today about a couple of the highlights from the FCPA Guidance.

I. The Ten Hallmarks of Effective Compliance Programs

As a ‘Nuts and Bolts’ guy I found the DOJ/SEC formulation of their thoughts on what might constitute a best practices compliance program, the most useful part. The Guidance cautions that there is no “one-size-fits-all” compliance program. It recognizes a variety of factors such as size, type of business, industry and risk profile a company should determine for its own needs regarding a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program. But the Guidance made clear that these ten points are “meant to provide insight into the aspects of compliance programs that DOJ and SEC assess”. In other words you should pay attention to these and use this information to assess your own compliance regime.

  1. Commitment from Senior Management and a Clearly Articulated Policy Against Corruption. It all starts with tone at the top. But more than simply ‘talk-the-talk’ company leadership must ‘walk-the-walk’ and lead by example. Both the DOJ and SEC look to see if a company has a “culture of compliance”. More than a paper program is required, it must have real teeth and it must be put into action, all of which is led by senior management. The Guidance states, “A strong ethical culture directly supports a strong compliance program. By adhering to ethical standards, senior managers will inspire middle managers to reinforce those standards.” This prong ends by stating that the DOJ and SEC will “evaluate whether senior management has clearly articulated company standards, communicated them in unambiguous terms, adhered to them scrupulously, and disseminated them throughout the organization.”
  2. Code of Conduct and Compliance Policies and Procedures. The Code of Conduct has long been seen as the foundation of a company’s overall compliance program and the Guidance acknowledges this fact. But a Code of Conduct and a company’s compliance policies need to be clear and concise. Importantly, the Guidance made clear that if a company has a large employee base that is not fluent in English such documents need to be translated into the native language of those employees. A company also needs to have appropriate internal controls based upon the risks that a company has assessed for its business model.
  3. Oversight, Autonomy, and Resources. This section began with a discussion on the assignment of a senior level executive to oversee and implement a company’s compliance program. Equally importantly, the compliance function must have “sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively.” Finally, the compliance function should report to the company’s Board of Directors or an appropriate committee of the Board such as the Audit Committee. Overall, the DOJ and SEC will “consider whether the company devoted adequate staffing and resources to the compliance program given the size, structure, and risk profile of the business.”
  4. Risk Assessment. The Guidance states, “assessment of risk is fundamental to developing a strong compliance program”. Indeed, if there is one over-riding theme in the Guidance it is that a company should assess its risks in all areas of its business. The Guidance is also quite clear that when the DOJ and SEC look at a company’s overall compliance program, they “take into account whether and to what degree a company analyzes and addresses the particular risks it faces.” The Guidance lists factors that a company should consider in any risk assessment. They are “the country and industry sector, the business opportunity, potential business partners, level of involvement with governments, amount of government regulation and oversight, and exposure to customs and immigration in conducting business affairs.”
  5. Training and Continuing Advice. Communication of a compliance program is a cornerstone of any anti-corruption compliance program. The Guidance specifies that both the “DOJ and SEC will evaluate whether a company has taken steps to ensure that relevant policies and procedures have been communicated throughout the organization, including through periodic training and certification for all directors, officers, relevant employees, and, where appropriate, agents and business partners.” The training should be risk based so that those high-risk employees and third party business partners receive an appropriate level of training. A company should also devote appropriate resources to providing its employees with guidance and advice on how to comply with their own compliance program on an ongoing basis.
  6. Incentives and Disciplinary Measures. Initially the Guidance notes that a company’s compliance program should apply from “the board room to the supply room – no one should be beyond its reach.” There should be appropriate discipline in place and administered for any violation of the FCPA or a company’s compliance program. Additionally, 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.”
  7. Third-Party Due Diligence and Payments. The Guidance says that companies must engage in risk based due diligence to understand the “qualifications and associations of its third-party partners, including its business reputation, and relationship, if any, with foreign officials.” Next a company should articulate a business rationale for the use of the third party. This would include an evaluation of the payment arrangement to ascertain that the compensation is reasonable and will not be used as a basis for corrupt payments. Lastly, there should be ongoing monitoring of third parties.
  8. Confidential Reporting and Internal Investigation. This means more than simply a hotline. The Guidance suggests that anonymous reporting, and perhaps even a company ombudsman, might be appropriate to have in place for employees to report allegations of corruption or violations of the FCPA. Furthermore, it is just as important what a company does after an allegation is made. The Guidance states, “once an allegation is made, companies should have in place an efficient, reliable, and properly funded process for investigating the allegation and documenting the company’s response, including any disciplinary or remediation measures taken.” The final message is what did you learn from the allegation and investigation and did you apply it in your company?
  9. Continuous Improvement: Periodic Testing and Review. As noted in the Guidance, “compliance programs that do not just exist on paper but are followed in practice will inevitably uncover compliance weaknesses and require enhancements. Consequently, DOJ and SEC evaluate whether companies regularly review and improve their compliance programs and not allow them to become stale.” The DOJ/SEC expects that a company will review and test its compliance controls and “think critically” about its own weaknesses and risk areas. Internal controls should also be periodically tested through targeted audits.
  1. Mergers and Acquisitions.Pre-Acquisition Due Diligence and Post-Acquisition Integration.Here the DOJ and SEC spell out their expectations in not only the post-acquisition integration phase but also in the pre-acquisition phase. This pre-acquisition information was not something on which most companies had previously focused. A company should attempt to perform as much substantive compliance due diligence that it can do before it purchases a company. After the deal is closed, an acquiring entity needs to perform a FCPA audit, train all senior management and risk employees in the purchased company and integrate the acquired entity into its compliance regime.

II. Declinations

Many commentators such The FCPA Professor, Mike Volkov, myself and others have advocated that the DOJ release information about Declinations because they are an excellent source of information for the compliance practitioner about the DOJ’s thinking on FCPA enforcement issues. Indeed I had written, “In an area like Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) enforcement, where guiding case law is largely non-existent, compliance practitioners must rely on the actions and decisions of federal enforcement agencies for information. Such information is available in the form of enforcement actions, the release of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs), and hypothetical fact patterns presented to the Department of Justice (DOJ) through its Opinion Release procedure. But one highly valuable source of guidance has been kept from regulated entities and their counsels: DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “declination” decisions, opinions which are drafted when the agencies decline to prosecute an individual or organization. A change is needed in this counterproductive policy. The release of substantive information on declinations would help foster greater compliance with the FCPA by providing practitioners with specific facts of circumstances where investigations did not result in an enforcement action.”

Whether the DOJ was answering any of the commentary, it hardly matters. But a significant section of the Guidance is dedicated specifically to six Declinations provided to companies which self-disclosed possible FCPA violations. The types of issues reported to the DOJ were as varied as mergers and acquisitions (M&A); actions by third parties on a company’s behalf which violated the FCPA; payments improperly made by company employees which were incorrectly characterized as facilitation payments; and illegal bribes paid out by a small group of company employees. From these Declinations, I derived the following points (1) The Company was alerted to possible corrupt conduct via its compliance program or internal controls. (2) Possible FCPA violations were self-reported or otherwise voluntarily disclosed to the DOJ/SEC. (3) The entities in question conducted a thorough internal investigation and shared the results with the DOJ/SEC. (4) The conduct violative of the FCPA was not pervasive and consisted of relatively small bribes or other corrupt payments. (5) The company took immediate corrective action against the person(s) engaging in the conduct. (6) Each company’s compliance program was expanded or enhanced and these enhancements were reflected in compliance training, internal process improvements and additional enhanced internal controls.

So here’s to the Guidance at the ripe of age of 2. Thanks for coming into all of our (compliance) lives. I have also held back the best for last; the Guidance is available for free on the DOJ website and you can download it by clicking 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, 2014

November 21, 2014

The Strategic Use of Compliance

StrategyWhat is your company’s compliance strategy? By this I do not mean what is your company doing to put in a place a best practices anti-corruption compliance program that meets the requirement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act. My inquiry goes both further and deeper. Has your company moved beyond the view that compliance with the FCPA is simply enough by incorporating compliance into your business strategy to secure a competitive advantage going forward? I thought about this issue when I read a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, entitled “Finding the Right Corporate Legal Strategy”, by Robert C. Bird and David Orozco. While the authors posed the questions from the legal perspective, I found their insights equally valid from the compliance perspective.

While I am fairly certain that Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners understand the need for the integration of compliance into the day-to-day business operations of a company, many business types still view compliance “as a constraint on managerial decisions, primarily perceiving” compliance as simply a cost. The authors believe that the more enlightened approach is for companies to use functions such as compliance “in order to secure long-term competitive advantage.” To do so the authors detailed five different legal strategies, which they call pathways, that companies might use that I will translate into compliance strategies. They are in ascending order of importance: (1) avoidance; (2) compliance; (3) prevention; (4) value and (5) transformation. The right strategy for your company will depend on a variety of factors such as maturity of your compliance function, commitment by senior management to compliance, your business model and the compliance function’s ability to collaborate with business managers.

Avoidance

This is the idiot response where a company either disregards anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA or UK Bribery Act or engages in willful blindness. Unfortunately, there are many major US and foreign corporations that have come to grief under the FCPA because they did not take some of the most basic steps to comply with these laws. It is largely because senior management believes that compliance provides “little concrete value, so they make no effort to” even acquiring knowledge in the area. Worse yet are companies who gain a modicum of knowledge about such anti-corruption laws “only so that they can circumvent it to achieve a desired objective.” The authors note that while “An avoidance strategy can sometimes be effective…it can also lead to disaster.” This lead to the compliance function and the CCO only being called in an emergency, after the conduct has occurred so that compliance is always in a reactionary mode.

Compliance

This pathway means complying with laws, not the compliance function itself. Under this pathway, “companies recognize that the law is an unwelcome but mandatory constraint on their activities.” So while following this strategy would allow a company to have subject matter expert (SME) practitioners in the field of compliance, it would exist only “so the business could operate within its legal bounds.” Under this pathway, companies still view compliance as a cost to be minimized. Moreover, anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA or UK Bribery Act are “viewed as primarily inflexible—externally imposed rules that cannot be changed or adapted to suit a particular corporate strategy.” This means that business managers will simply not understand that compliance can be used to further business goals. It also leads most business unit folks to believe that compliance is the Land of No and the CCO is in reality ‘Dr. No’ who is there “primarily as a watchdog that polices corporate conduct for illegal activity.”

Prevention 

Under the prevention pathway, senior management acknowledges that anti-corruption laws can be used as competitive advantage “to further well-defined business roles.” This means that the compliance is proactive rather than reactive. Senior managers understand how the law relates to their business areas “and they appreciate how it can be used to minimize particular business risks.” The compliance function “seeks partnerships with managers to help them achieve their risk-management goals.” This pathway has the added benefit that allows compliance practitioners to recognize the importance of measuring and quantifying compliance issues and data “as a part of a broader effort to support a business oriented strategy.” It also means that the compliance function is available to the business unit when the competitive landscape is “strategically assessed” by the business unit. This is more than simply having a seat at the table; it is being a part of and contributing to the commercial strategy.

Value

Companies operating in this pathway use compliance to “create tangible and identifiable value.” But to do so requires a true corporate commitment because business unit managers will need to have a strong understanding of anti-corruption compliance and how it can be tailored to generate value for the company. The CCO, and indeed the entire compliance function, must see itself “as a key stakeholder in helping the company to increase its return on investment” and should see itself in helping to create value for the company. Usually this comes about in two ways. The first is by using compliance to lower costs of doing business, particularly through third parties. Here you can think of reducing the number of vendors who perform the same services or provide the same products to you by appropriate management of your third party compliance program. The second way is by using compliance to increase revenues.

Transformation

In this final pathway, a company will incorporate compliance directly into its business model. While the authors note that few companies have been able to move this far in the legal arena, those who have done so possess a rare and valuable “capability that can provide a competitive advantage that is difficult for a business rival to imitate.” One of the keys to making this transformation is that not only is compliance integrated within “the company’s various value-chain activities; it is also linked with the value chains of important external partners as part of the larger business ecosystem.” This pathway is only available to companies with the most mature compliance function and most usually when compliance is combined with “the business model and core competencies of the company.”

Clearly there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to compliance strategies. However if your compliance program has maturity and senior management can operate with their eyes open, they will see that while the first three strategies focus on managing risk, the final two are targeted towards generating business opportunities or least have compliance as a part of the team doing so. As compliance practitioners move into the CCO 2.0 role that I have advocated, these pathways can provide you with a tangible starting point to educate senior management on what compliance can bring to the (business) table.

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, 2014

November 19, 2014

Chamber of Commerce: Corporations Form the Cornerstone of FCPA Compliance

CornerstoneRecently one of the most unlikely sources for praise of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) came out to inform us all that corporations are the cornerstone of FCPA compliance and enforcement. You may be surprised to find out that it came from the US Chamber of Commerce. It did not come in the form of Congressional testimony in praise of the FCPA but in the Chamber’s Amicus Curie filing in a case currently being considered by the Texas Supreme Court. Regardless of the forum, the praise was just as strong and hopefully just as lasting.

The Texas Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in the appeal of Shell v. Writt. Unusually for a state supreme court case, it touches on the FCPA. The issue before the Court is whether Shell’s internal FCPA investigation is absolutely privileged from a defamation claim by persons named in the report as having violated the FCPA. Being as this is Texas, with a state supreme court just to the right of Attila the Hun, it is easy to determine what the outcome of the case will be, the company will win.

Procedurally, Writt, the plaintiff claiming defamation from Shell’s report of its internal investigation that it provided to the Department of Justice (DOJ), lost at the trial court on summary judgment. The trial court found that Shell had an absolute privilege because the report was turned over to a government agency investigating the matter. The court of appeals reversed this decision holding that because the internal investigation was voluntary, not mandatory, that only a conditional privilege existed and sent the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. Shell appealed this court of appeals decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the US Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in the appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, supporting Shell. In its brief, the Chamber came out with full guns blazing in support of the FCPA and for full internal investigations and self-disclosure by companies. At the start of its brief, the Chamber comes out four square in support of the FCPA stating, “Since 1977, and especially over the last decade, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) has played a very significant role in the federal regulation of multinational corporations. By punishing bribery and other illicit influence of foreign officials by U.S. companies, the statute seeks to improve the integrity of American businesses, promote market efficiency, and maintain the reputation of American democracy abroad.”

The Chamber noted the importance of the FCPA to both the US government and to US businesses. It stated, “Over the past decade, the FCPA has taken on renewed importance for both the U.S. government and American businesses.” As to the importance that the US government places on FCPA enforcement, the Chamber cited to the following, “DOJ officials have publicly stated that “enforcement of the FCPA is second only to fighting terrorism in terms of priority.”” Lastly, because of this focus, “FCPA compliance is now a main focus of concern for U.S. businesses.” Moreover, US companies are now ““light years ahead of where [they were] circa the mid-to-late 1990s,” with companies “implementing more rigorous and sophisticated compliance protocols,” including thorough internal investigations and candid self reporting.”

The Chamber did not stop there with its high praise of the FCPA and the importance of the FCPA and its enforcement for US businesses. The Chamber next turned to US businesses role in FCPA enforcement and compliance when it said, “the government has always relied upon businesses to cooperate with investigations and self-report any potential violations by corporate employees. “Federal enforcement authorities have consistently encouraged, if not as a practical matter demanded, that as to the FCPA companies voluntarily conduct internal investigations, disclose potential violations and cooperate with government investigations.” With their vast resources, individualized focus, and access to documents and witnesses, “companies are actually much better positioned to gather more information more quickly overseas than the Justice Department or the SEC.”” Perhaps channeling some of the criticisms of the recent General Motors (GM) and FIFA investigations, the Chamber recognizes that more than simply results must be shared with the DOJ when it stated, “The government requires that corporations provide not just information on violations that they are certain of, but rather any “relevant information and evidence,” as well as identification of “relevant actors inside and outside the company.””

The money line from the Chamber’s brief is the following, “Corporate cooperation, internal investigation, and self-reporting thus form the cornerstone of FCPA compliance and enforcement.” It could not be clearer from this statement the importance that a robust internal investigation protocol, coupled with self-disclosure bring to FCPA compliance. The FCPA Guidance states, “once an allegation is made, companies should have in place an efficient, reliable, and properly funded process for investigating the allegation and documenting the company’s response, including any disciplinary or remediation measures taken. Companies will want to consider taking “lessons learned” from any reported violations and the outcome of any resulting investigation to update their internal controls and compliance program and focus future training on such issues, as appropriate.”

Thus internal investigations coupled with self-reporting provide both companies and the US government towards the same goal; greater compliance with the FCPA because the Chamber recognizes that the FPCA plays a vital role in international business and corruption prevention and prosecution. The Chamber even cites, favorably, the Congressional logic for the enactment of the FCPA by stating, “Congress determined that such practices tarnish the image of American democracy abroad, impair confidence in American businesses, hamper the efficiency of the market, anger the citizens of otherwise friendly foreign nations, and, put simply, are “morally repugnant” and “bad business.”” Finally, the Chamber acknowledges the importance of the FCPA for both US and international investors; both in the US and for companies abroad by concluding, “The FCPA is a valuable statute that helps to reduce corruption and to reinforce public and investor confidence in the markets here and abroad.”

This brief lays out one of the strongest articulations of the power of the FCPA. I did not expect the Chamber to come out so forcefully in favor of what that many business types continually bemoan. The Chamber’s recognition that FCPA compliance and enforcement are cornerstones of the protection of US businesses; US business interests and investor confidence across the globe is a welcome addition to the FCPA dialogue.

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, 2014

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,878 other followers