FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

December 22, 2014

Alstom Joins Santa’s Naughty List – In a Very Big Way

Naughty ListThe North Pole for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action announcements seems to have temporarily moved south for the month of December. Last week there was the final announcement of the long-standing Avon FCPA enforcement action. On December 22, 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced settlement of the Alstom enforcement action. Certainly the DOJ is giving out presents to companies that have been very, very naughty. I am currently exploring the Avon enforcement action over several days of blog posts but I had to interrupt those posts to write something about the Alstom resolution for it was extremely significant gift for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), compliance practitioner and companies going forward.

The Fine

First and foremost was the fine amount. At $772MM it is the highest criminal fine for FCPA violations in the history of the world. Siemens’ prior of a reported $800MM was a combination of DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fines and penalties. Alstom was not subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC so there was no component of this amount for either civil books and records or internal controls violations. But for those few remaining dunderheads out there who think their private company status insulates them from FCPA liability; wake up and smell the mistletoe, as the DOJ will be looking for you to smack a big one on. The fine brings the 2014 fine totals up to around $1.5bn, which comes a close second to the record-setting year of 2010, where the total amount of fines was $1.8bn.

Disclosure, Cooperation and Conduct

While I am in the middle of lambasting Avon for its conduct that led to its FCPA violations, one really has to step aside and give some credit to Alstom for some of the worst actions a company can engage in when dealing with bribery and corruption. If there was anyone on the naughty list, it certainly was Alstom. First is the company’s failure to self-disclose its obvious criminal conduct. The second was the clear foot-dragging in dealing the DOJ, during the pendency of the investigation. Finally, to complete this triumvirate of idiocy was the company’s refusal to timely engage in remediation. Dick Cassin, writing in the FCPA Blog, pointed out that Alstom’s conduct included the following:

  • Alstom’s refusal to fully cooperate with the department’s investigation for several years
  • The breadth of the companies’ misconduct, which spanned many years, occurred in countries around the globe and in several business lines, and involved sophisticated schemes to bribe high-level government officials
  • Alstom’s lack of an effective compliance and ethics program at the time of the conduct, and
  • Alstom’s prior criminal misconduct, including conduct that led to resolutions with various other governments and the World Bank.

Individual Prosecutions

Alstom’s conduct was so bad during the investigation that the DOJ obtained indictments against four company executives during the pendency of the investigation. Three of these executives have pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Cassin wrote, “Alstom began cooperating only after the DOJ publicly charged several Alstom executives, the government said.” The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has also brought charges against individuals.

Post Acquisition FCPA Liability

I promised a Christmas present for companies out there and neither Santa nor I want to disappoint those not on the naughty list, for the Alstom enforcement action makes clear that the company which is acquiring them, GE, is not responsible for the fine going forward. This enforcement action reinforces the message the DOJ presented in Opinion Release 14-02; that a company which engages in pre-acquisition due diligence, discloses and then remediates the issues after they acquire the entity, can rest easier about purchasing a FCPA violation. For if GE can purchase a company with the clear attitude about doing business in compliance with anti-corruption laws, such as Alstom, with confidence that it will not be subject to a FCPA enforcement action, it means that any other company can do so as well.

Cassin reported, “Alstom SA pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information in federal court in Connecticut. The DOJ charged the company with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by falsifying its books and records and failing to implement adequate internal controls. Alstom admitted its criminal conduct…In addition, Alstom Network Schweiz AG, a Swiss subsidiary, pleaded guilty to a criminal information charging it with conspiracy to violate the antibribery provisions of the FCPA.” Finally, “Two U.S. subsidiaries — Alstom Power Inc. and Alstom Grid Inc. — both entered into deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ. They admitted that they conspired to violate the antibribery provisions of the FCPA.” The settlement documents have not been released as yet but hopefully they will be by the time of the final sentencing hearing before US District Judge Janet B. Arterton in June 2015.

The significance of this enforcement action will reverberate for a long time 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

The Avon FCPA Settlement, Part I

AvonIt is finally done. The long awaited Avon Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action is on the books. I would say what a long, strange trip it has been but that does not really seem to capture everything that went on in this case. Before we only knew such things as a whistleblower contacting the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company with allegations of bribery in the company’s China business unit, to the Head of Internal Audit being caught up directly in the scandal, put on administrative leave and then terminated; to a professional fee burn rate on the case which would rival the Gross National Product (GNP) of many countries; to Grand Jury subpoenas being issued (or threatened to be issued) to corporate executives to secure their testimony in criminal proceedings; to publicly negotiating with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); we all thought this FCPA matter had it all. But it turns out just how little we knew about the company’s conduct and just how bad it was which led to this settlement because to say it was bad would demean and belittle the word bad. So over the next few blog posts, I will be exploring Avon, its conduct and the FCPA enforcement action.

For the Record

The amount of the total fines and penalties was $135 million. As noted by the FCPA Professor, “the settlement is the third-largest ever against a U.S. company.” The enforcement action included several resolution vehicles, including a Criminal Information against Avon China resolved via a Plea Agreement; a Criminal Information against Avon Products resolved via a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with an aggregate fine amount of $67.6MM. There was a separate SEC resolution through a Civil Complaint against Avon Products, which it agreed to resolve without admitting or denying the allegations through payment. The amount of the SEC settlement was $67.4MM. While the company’s internal investigation began in China, it quickly expanded so that it went far beyond China, including Japan, Argentina, Brazil, India and Mexico.

How Did We Get Here?

It all began back in May 2008, when an employee from Avon’s China business unit sent a letter to the head of the company alleging the China entity had engaged in bribery and corruption. In October 2008, Avon reported, in a Statement of Voluntary Disclosure, that it was investigating an internally reported allegation by an undisclosed whistleblower that corrupt payments had been made in its China operations. These allegations claimed that certain travel, entertainment and other expenses might have been improperly incurred. Although the details of the Avon case have not been disclosed, direct selling was not allowed in China under a law passed in 1998. The National Review reported that Avon was able to secure permission in late 2005 to begin direct selling on a limited basis. Later the Chinese government issued direct-selling regulations and granted Avon a broader license in February 2006 to make such sales.

In its 2009 Annual Report, Avon noted that the internal investigation and compliance reviews, which started in China, had now expanded to its operations in at least 12 other countries and was focusing on reviewing “certain expenses and books and records processes, including, but not limited to, travel, entertainment, gifts, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees”. The FCPA Professor, citing the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), reported that Avon suspended four employees, including the President, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and top government affairs executive of Avon’s China unit as well as a senior executive in New York who was Avon’s head of Internal Audit.

One of the significant pieces of information to come out of the Avon matter is the related costs. As reported in the 2009 Annual Report the following costs were incurred and were anticipated to be incurred in 2010:

Investigate Cost, Revenue or Earnings Loss
Investigative Cost (2009) $35 Million
Investigative Cost (anticipated-2010) $95 Million
Drop in Q1 Earnings $74.8 Million
Loss in Revenue from China Operations $10 Million
Total $214.8 Million

Marketwatch also reported that after these investigations were made public Avon’s stock prices fell by 8%. Lastly, in addition to the above direct and anticipated costs and drop in stock value, the ratings agency Fitch speculated about the possibility of a drop in Avon’s credit ratings. But as bad as these numbers appear they only got worse for Avon as by 2012 its spend on professional fees was estimated to be over $247MM. As of this date, the total professional fees are closer to $300MM.

Grand Jury Investigation and Terminations

The WSJ reported in February 2012 that the DOJ had gone to a grand jury with evidence of FCPA violations against US executives at Avon. Joe Palazzolo and Emily Glazer reported that several company employees were terminated for their role in the scandal. They wrote, “The company said it fired Vice Chairman Charles Cramb on Jan. 29 [2012] in connection with the overseas corruption probe and another investigation into allegedly improper disclosure of financial information to analysts. Mr. Cramb couldn’t be reached for comment. In May [2011], Avon said it fired Ian Rossetter, its former head of global internal audit and security and previously Avon’s head of finance in Asia. Mr. Rossetter didn’t respond to requests for comment and his attorney declined to comment. Bennett Gallina, a senior vice president responsible for the company’s operations outside the U.S. and Latin America, left Avon in February 2011, two days after being put on leave in connection with the internal corruption investigation, the company said at the time.”

Negotiating in Public

I do not know who was advising Avon but the decision to try and force the government’s hand by making public its negotiating position was one of the most bone-headed moves I have seen a similarly situated company make. Avon initially announced that it had opened negotiations with the US government over the terms of a resolution in August 2012. In mid 2013, the FCPA Blog reported that Avon low-balled the SEC with an opening offer of $12MM. Later, in 2013, the company reported in an SEC filing that the “Securities and Exchange Commission offered an FCPA settlement last month with monetary penalties that were ‘significantly greater’ than the $12 million the company had offered.” But not to take such government tactics sitting down, Avon publicly announced in the filing that “Monetary penalties at the level proposed by the SEC staff are not warranted.” That certainly was great information to put out to the public enforcing that you are taking a hardball approach with the SEC and telling them their fines and penalties are not deserved for a company that has gone through all Avon has during this FCPA journey.

As I said, this matter was a long strange journey but as strange as things were that we knew about before last week, they became much stranger. Tomorrow we take a look at the facts that came out through the settlement documents to see the nefariousness of Avon’s conduct.

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 18, 2014

Ty Cobb and the Compliance Performance Appraisal Review

Ty CobbToday we celebrate greatness, in the form of one of the greatest baseball players ever, with the anniversary of the birthday of Ty Cobb. Coming up to the majors as a center fielder for the Detroit Tigers in 1905, he emerged in 1907 to hit .350 and win the first of nine consecutive league batting titles. He also led the league that year with 212 hits, 49 steals and 116 RBIs. In 1909 he won the league’s Triple Crown for the most home runs (9), most runs batted in (107), and best batting average (.377). In 1911, he led the league in eight offensive categories, including batting (.420), slugging percentage (.621), hits (248), doubles (47), triples (24), runs (147), RBI (144) and steals (83), and won the first American League MVP award. He batted .410 the following season, becoming the first player in the history of baseball to bat better than .400 in two consecutive seasons.

Cobb set a record for stolen bases (96) and won his ninth straight batting title in the 1915 season. He faltered the next year, but came back to win another three straight titles from 1917 to 1919. He left the team in 1926 and signed with the Oakland Athletics, hitting .357 and becoming the first-ever player to reach 4,000 total career hits before retiring after the 1928 season. His record of nine consecutive batting titles as well as his overall number of 12 will never be succeeded.

While Cobb certainly had quite a bit of natural ability, he was also a very dedicated baseball player, forever working to improve his craft. He might not have taken well to criticism but he did work to improve all aspects of his game. One of the modern ways to improve employee performance is through an annual employee performance review. Recently I read an article in the Houston Business Journal entitled “6 Ways To Make Performance Reviews More Productive” by Janet Flewelling. I found her article provided some interesting perspectives on some of the ‘nuts and bolts’ work that you can put into your Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act anti-corruption program that can be relatively low-cost but can add potentially high benefits.

One of the ways to drive compliance into the DNA of an organization is through incentives such as making it a component of a year-end discretionary bonus payment. Indeed the FCPA Guidance states, “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. Some organizations, for example, have made adherence to compliance a significant metric for management’s bonuses so that compliance becomes an integral part of management’s everyday concern.”

Most Human Resources (HR) experts will opine that properly executed performance appraisals are crucial to organizational productivity as well as the development of employee skills and employee morale. Moreover, they can serve a couple of different functions for a best practices compliance program. First, and foremost, they communicate to each employee their job performance from a compliance perspective. However, one key is not to approach the performance appraisal review as an isolated event but rather a continual process. This means that instead of trying to play catch-up at the last minute, supervisors should provide feedback and assess job performance throughout the year so annual reviews are grounded in a year’s worth of experience. This includes the compliance component of each job. The second area performance appraisals impact is compensation. As noted above, the DOJ and SEC expect that your compliance program will have both discipline and incentives. But those incentives need to be based upon something. The score or other performance appraisal metrics will provide to you a standard which you can measure and use to evaluate for other purposes such as employee promotion or advancement to senior management going forward.

In her article Flewelling provides six points you should consider which I have adapted for the compliance component of an annual employee performance appraisal. 

  1. Prioritize reviews in your schedule – You should schedule the employee performance appraisal at least several days in advance, rather than when a time slot suddenly opens up. You would make sure that you allot sufficient time for unhurried give and take between the reviewer and the employee.
  2. Review the entire year’s performance – You should resist the attempt to focus the discussion on the latest compliance experience. This is called recency bias. If a compliance issue arose in the past month or so, you need to keep it in perspective for the entire review period. Moreover, by focusing a review on a recent problem you may obscure prior accomplishments and make an employee feel demoralized. Take care not to go too much in the opposite direction as recency bias can work both ways, and one should not let a favorable recent compliance event overshadow the full review period.
  3. Do not hesitate to critique – Be generous with praise where it is warranted, but do not hesitate to discuss improvements needed in the compliance arena. Many supervisors are reluctant to confront and indeed desire to avoid confrontation. However remaining silent about an employee’s compliance shortcomings is a disservice to both the company and the employee.
  4. Do not dominate the conversation – Remember that you must give the employee time for self-appraisal and to ask questions or to comment about the feedback received from the compliance perspective. If there are specific questions or concerns raised by the employee you need to be prepared to address them as appropriate.
  5. Understand the employee’s role – You need to understand and appreciate that if the recent economy has resulted in many employees assuming the responsibilities of more than one position. If relevant to the employee, acknowledge that fact and take it into account in the review. This is certainly true from the compliance perspective as many non-Compliance Department employees have cross-functional responsibilities. If they claim not to have the time to handle their compliance responsibilities you will need to address this with the employee and perhaps structurally as well.
  6. Anticipate reprisal – Although it is rare, you can face the situation where an employee who is very dissatisfied with a review may refuse to sign it. The employee may be offered the opportunity to add a statement to the review. Also point out that the employee signature is an acknowledgement of receiving the review and does not signify agreement. If the employee still refuses to sign, have a second supervisor come in to witness the refusal. This may be particularly important from the compliance perspective.

Flewelling ends her piece by noting, “A proper annual review requires considerable effort from employee supervisors. It should be a full-year process involving regular guidance and feedback and perhaps several mini-reviews along the way. But rather than viewing it as onerous, supervisors should keep in mind that it is a tool for making their departments work more efficiently and yields better results for everyone involved.” I would add this is doubled from the compliance perspective. Nonetheless the potential upside can be significant from your overall compliance program perspective.

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 15, 2014

Hiring and Promotion in Compliance – Wait for Great

7K0A0597The role of Human Resources (HR) in anti-corruption programs, based upon the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act, is often underestimated. I come from a HR background and practiced labor law early in my career so I have an understanding of the skills HR can bring to any business system which deals with legal issues; which is not only required of all businesses but certainly is true of FCPA or UK Bribery Act compliance. If your company has a culture where compliance is perceived to be in competition or worse yet antithetical to HR, the company certainly is not hitting on all cylinders and maybe moving towards dysfunction.

One of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance program relates to the key role HR plays in incentives and discipline. However, another key area that is not given as much attention is in hiring and promotion. The FCPA Guidance states, “[M]ake integrity, ethics and compliance part of the promotion, compensation and evaluation processes as well. For at the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority is to reward it. Conversely, if employees are led to believe that, when it comes to compensation and career advancement, all that counts is short-term profitability, and that cu tting ethical corners is an ac­ceptable way of getting there, they’ll perform to that measure. To cite an example from a different walk of life: a college football coach can be told that the graduation rates of his players are what matters, but he’ll know differently if the sole focus of his contract extension talks or the decision to fire him is his win-loss record.” In other words make compliance significant for professional growth in your organization and it will help to drive the message of doing business in compliance.

I thought about these concepts when I read an article in the Corner Office column of the Sunday New York Times (NYT), entitled “Sally Smith of Buffalo Wild Wings, on patience in hiring” where columnist Adam Bryant interviewed Sally Smith, the Chief Executive of Buffalo Wild Wings, the restaurant chain. She had some interesting concepts not only around leadership but thoughts on the hiring and promotion functions, which are useful for any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner striving to drive compliance into the DNA of a company.

Leadership – Get Feedback

One of the early lessons which Smith learned about leadership is to set clear expectations. Bryant wrote that Smith told him, “You have to be really clear about what you want and what your expectations are. When you’re clear and everybody understands them, you have a much better chance of success than if you say, “Just do it.” It’s a great slogan, but you’ve got to know what it is that you’re just doing.” This is a constant battle for the compliance practitioner when senior management also makes clear that you must make your numbers as well. However this dynamic tension can be met and one of the best ways is to require business-types to make their numbers but doing so in a way that is in compliance with a company’s Code of Conduct and compliance regime.

A second leadership lesson that Smith has learned is around feedback. As you might guess from a Chief Executive, Smith has found that obtaining honest critiques about her management style from those who work under her is difficult to acquire. To overcome this reluctance she set up a program where her leadership can give anonymous reviews of her performance annually to the company’s Board of Directors. Bryant said, “My leadership team does a performance review on me each year for the board. It’s anonymous. They can talk about my management style or things I need to work on. If you want to continue growing, you have to be willing to say, “What do I need to get better at?”” This type of insight is absolutely mandatory for any best practices compliance program as anonymous reporting is also one of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance program. But more than simply an anonymous reporting line for FCPA violations, how does your company consider feedback to determine how all levels of the company is doing compliance going forward or as the FCPA Guidance states, “From the boardroom to the shop floor.”

Hiring and Promotion – Waiting for Great

Here Smith had some thoughts put in a manner not often articulated. One of her cornerstones when hiring is to search out the best person for any open position, whether through an external hire or internal promotion. Bryant stated that Smith said “We use the phrase “wait for great” in hiring. When you have an open position, don’t settle for someone who doesn’t quite have the cultural match or skill set you want. It’s better to wait for the right person.”

Smith articulated some different skills that she uses to help make such a determination. Once a potential hire or promotion gets to her level for an interview, she will assume that person is technically competent but “I assume that you’re competent, but I’ll probe a bit to make sure you know what you’re talking about. And then I’ll say, “If I asked the person in the office next to you about you, what would they say?””

Passion and curiosity are other areas that Smith believes is important to probe during the hiring or promotion process. In the area of passion, Smith will “Often ask, “What do you do in your free time?” If they’re passionate about something, I know they’re going to bring that passion to the workplace.” Smith believes curiosity is important because it helps to determine whether a prospective hire will fit into the Buffalo Wild Wings culture. Bryant wrote, “I look for curiosity too, because if you’re curious and thinking about how things work, you’ll fit well in our culture. So I’ll ask about the last book they read, or the book that had the greatest impact on them.” Smith also inquires about jobs or assignments that went well and “ones that went off the tracks. You ask enough questions around those and you can determine whether they’re going to need a huge support team.”

I found these insights by Smith very useful for a compliance practitioner and the hiring and promotion functions in a compliance program. By asking questions about compliance you can not only find out the candidates thoughts on compliance but you will also begin to communicate the importance of such precepts to them in this process. Now further imagine how powerful such a technique could be if a Chief Executive asked such questions around compliance when they were involved in the hiring or promotion process. Talk about setting a tone at the top from the start of someone’s career at that company. But the most important single item I gleaned from Bryant’s interview of Smith was the “Wait for great” phrase. If this were a part of the compliance discussion during promotion or hiring that could lead to having a workforce committed to doing business in the right way.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 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 10, 2014

The Nobel Prize and FCPA Enforcement Going Forward

Nobel Prize MedalOne hundred and 13 years ago on this date, the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in Stockholm, Sweden, in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace. The ceremony came on the fifth anniversary of the death of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite and other high explosives. In his will, Nobel directed that the bulk of his vast fortune be placed in a fund in which the interest would be “annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” Although Nobel offered no public reason for his creation of the prizes, it is widely believed that he did so out of moral regret over the increasingly lethal uses of his inventions in war. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences decides the prizes in physics, chemistry, and economic science; the Swedish Royal Caroline Medico-Surgical Institute determines the physiology or medicine award; the Swedish Academy chooses literature; and a committee elected by the Norwegian parliament awards the peace prize. The Nobel Prizes are still presented annually on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel’s death. Each Nobel Prize carries a cash prize of nearly $1,400,000 and recipients also received a gold medal, as is the tradition.

Just as important in the area of anti-corruption and anti-bribery is the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). Earlier this month the OECD issued a report entitled “Foreign Bribery Report-An Analysis of the Crime of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials”. To say the findings were eye opening, if not disheartening, would be to put it mildly. As reported by Shawn Donnan in the Financial Times (FT), in an article entitled “Big companies blamed for most of the world’s bribery cases”, he said that “Large companies and their senior managers are responsible for the vast majority of the world’s bribery cases and are giving up a third of their profits from related projects to corrupt officials”. Donnan summarized the reports key findings as follows:

  • Companies with more than 250 employees accounted for 60 per cent of the cases of corruption studied. In 31 per cent of the cases the companies brought the bribes to the attention of authorities themselves. In just 2 per cent of the cases were whistleblowers involved.
  • The cost of bribes averaged 10.9 per cent of the value of the related transaction and 34.5 per cent of the profits. The largest bribes paid in a single case were worth $1.4bn. The smallest were valued at just $13.17.
  • A majority of the bribery cases involved company executives. Managers were involved in 41 per cent of the cases. A further 12 per cent involved the president or chief executive officer of a company.
  • Corruption is not just a poor world phenomenon. Almost half the cases studied involved bribery of public officials from countries with “high” or “very high” levels of human development.
  • The number of bribery cases brought around the world has grown substantially since 1999 but has fallen in the past two years after reaching a peak of 68 annually in 2010. Moreover, the time needed to prosecute cases has risen substantially from an average of 2 years in 2003 to 7.3 years in 2013.
  • Executives at state-owned companies accounted were the target of almost three in 10 bribes while customs officials accounted for just 11 per cent. Almost 60 per cent of the bribes were paid in order to obtain government contracts.
  • More than two-thirds of all sanctions levied were the result of legal settlements rather than convictions. In almost half the cases studied the fines levied were worth less than 50 per cent of the profits made by defendants as a result of the bribe.
  • Oil and mining companies on average paid bribes worth 21 per cent of the value of projects whereas those involved in the education sector or in water supply paid just 2 per cent.

I thought about the implications of these key findings in the context of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement going forward. At the 2014 Securities Enforcement Forum, held in October of this year, Jesse Eisenger reporting in the New York Times (NYT) DealB%k column, in an article entitled “In Turnabout, Former Top Regulators Assail Wall Street Watchdogs”, noted that white-collar defense lawyer Brad S. Karp, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, discussed some of the defense tactics that he uses when the government comes knocking against banks. “First, he pushes to move the charges to a subsidiary. Second, he tries to lower the charge. Third, he said, he focuses “on the powerful individuals in an organization” meaning that lawyers need to put top management first as they prepare a defense.”

Now consider those tactics in the context of the OECD report. Where do you think that the Department of Justice (DOJ) or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might look if they wanted to beef up enforcement? I ask this question because of a second article, which got my attention this week. In the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Joel Schectman wrote a piece based upon in interview with University of Virginia School of Law professor Brandon Garrett, entitled “Professor Says Corporate Penalties Aren’t Working”. Schectman wrote, “many critics have said the government is still fighting companies with kid gloves.” Garrett delivered some direct criticisms when he was quoted as follows:

Of course, companies, like children, can’t go to jail. You can fine them, but the fines might not affect the right person. There is much more focus on rehabilitation compared with other areas of the criminal justice system. 

What you can do with companies is supervise them strictly, not through the lenient means they are using. People would be really troubled if the most serious individual offenders were let out and told to just behave for a couple years without supervision. And that is what’s happening with companies. In cases that are not plea bargains, there is no probation, there is no court supervision of probation, and with these deferred and non-prosecution agreements, most of them are not even supervised by an independent monitor. Only a quarter get monitorships. 

Most companies don’t have to audit their compliance to validate whether it’s working or not. Obviously a prosecutor is not in any position to obtain a sense of whether a big multinational company is complying with anything. Even a monitor needs a big international team working for them onsite to look at documents and interview employees.

Garrett does not seem to favor the DOJ going to trial but does believe that by getting a criminal plea in front of a court, the DOJ could use the resources and power of a federal court to deal with recidivists. Moreover, he believes that rehabilitation should be more rigorous and stated, “And if prosecutors aren’t getting anything more than the company’s assurance that it will do a systemic fix, that should leave us uneasy. We are starting to see recidivist banks and it’s looking like this compliance stuff isn’t working. A monitor isn’t a cure-all either. There are concerns about how a monitor is appointed. Do some of them go over budget without doing good work? But having someone independent seems a much better way to supervise compliance than rely on the company’s own assurance.”

What does all this mean for FCPA enforcement going forward? On the one hand you have the OECD saying the myth of the rogue employee is simply that, a myth. Corporations are intentionally violating anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA or certainly are aware of the conduct. Couple that with Garrett’s concerns that companies are getting off too easily and you may have a storm of more severe and stringent FCPA enforcement coming out of the DOJ and SEC. It may mean more and greater fines and penalties. It may mean greater use of external monitors who have unlimited budgets. It may mean more court supervision and interpretation of what compliance programs a company may implement going forward. It may mean longer and more thorough investigations as the DOJ and SEC strive to ascertain as much as they can that companies are remediating not only during the pendency of their investigations and enforcement actions but continue to do so while they are under resolution agreements such as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).

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 18, 2014

FIFA and Good-Faith Investigations

CautionYou know things are getting bad when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) questions a business’ moral authority. Things certainly cannot be much better when the regulators begin nosing around your own self-indulgence. What happens when you realize all of a sudden that all those actions you have taken may actually fall under the jurisdiction of both the United Kingdom and the United States and their respective anti-corruption laws, the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? It turns out all of this may have come through for our friends at Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

Last week FIFA announced that it had considered the investigation into allegations of corruption into the awarding of the 2018 World Cup tournament to Russia and the 2022 World Cup tournament to Qatar and found, as reported in the Financial Times (FT) by Roger Blitz in an article entitled “Fifa thrown into fresh turmoil over Qatar World Cup corruption claims”, that “any improper behaviour in the bidding process for the tournament was “of very limited scope.”” This conclusion was made by a FIFA appointed former judge, “Hans-Joachim Eckert, who is chairman of the adjudicatory chamber of Fifa’s ethics committee.” Eckert had reviewed a 350-page report by investigator Michael J. Garcia, who is a former US prosecutor now practicing law in New York. Eckert released a 42 page “summary study” of the Garcia report, which he claimed supported his decision.

Unfortunately for FIFA and Eckert, Blitz reported in another FT article, entitled “Garcia and Eckert set for showdown over Fifa report”, that “Mr Eckert’s summary was disowned within hours of its publication by Mr Garcia, who claimed it misrepresented his findings. He has protested to Fifa’s appeals committee.” Garcia’s statement “has blown apart Fifa’s attempt to bring to a close nearly three years of allegations of unethical behaviour and has left Mr Eckert under increasing pressure to publish the Garcia investigation.” This action by FIFA led Reinhard Rauball, president of the German football league (DFL), to say, “Europe would have to consider breaking away from Fifa unless the Garcia investigation was published in full.”

All of this came after the summary itself noted that documents and evidence surrounding the Russian bid were lost because the computers on which they were stored had been destroyed. Garcia was not even able to speak with all the relevant witness in the Qatar bid as well. Even with this lack of full investigation, Garcia issues a statement which said that Eckert’s summary contained “numerous and materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the investigatory chamber’s report.”

What does all of this mean for FIFA? Certainly if the head of the German football league says that the European soccer federations may have to pull out of the organization because it is so corrupt that portends poorly. In another article in the FT, entitled “Brussels launches sliding tackle against Fifa”, Alex Barker reported “The EU’s top sports official is urging Fifa to come clean with findings from its corruption investigation, in a warning that signals a Brussels rethink over the commercial freedoms enjoyed by football’s scandal-tarnished governing body. In a direct swipe at Fifa’s attempt to clear Russia and Qatar to run the next two World Cups, Tibor Navracsics, the EU commissioner for sports, has called for full publication of a graft report into the 2010 bidding process to “remove doubts” about its findings. While Sepp Blatter’s Fifa is an unregulated Swiss body independent from government, its lucrative business activities in the European market are subject to rules overseen by EU regulators, including sales of television rights.”

What about any criminal issues? A quick Google search reveals that FIFA has offices in both the US and the UK. Given the very broad jurisdiction of the FCPA and perhaps the UK Bribery Act, it does not seem too far a stretch for either the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or even the Overseas anti-corruption unit of the London police might want to open an investigation. Indeed CNN reported that the FBI is investigating FIFA at this time, saying “Investigators are moving ahead with their probe, which could result in charges against senior FIFA officials, the U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

For the compliance practitioner there are a couple of important lesson in all of this. First and foremost, in your internal investigations, you need to provide access of both documents and witnesses to your counsel. If you do not that alone may certainly compromise your investigation. This point was recently re-emphasized in the ongoing General Motors (GM) scandal over its ignition switch problems. It turns out that over two months prior to the public announcement the company had ordered over 500,000 new switches from its supplier. According to Hilary Stout and Bill Vlasic, writing in the New York Times (NYT) in an article entitled “G.M. Ordered a Half-Million Replacement Switches 2 Months Before Recall”, the order was placed after an internal company committee met. But no records of the meeting were provided to company’s outside counsel investigating this matter, Anton R. Valukas. Interestingly Valukas released a statement which the article quoted, ““To my knowledge, G.M. provided me access to all information in its possession related to G.M. inquiries regarding various repair options and part availability as G.M. considered potential fixes for the ignition switch in the event that a recall would occur,” the statement said.” That is lawyer-speak for I looked at what they showed me.

Hiding or not providing access to internal or outside counsel can be a recipe for disaster with the DOJ. The reason is the same as it is a disaster for FIFA in Europe. There is no trust left for the organization. Ask any ex-DOJer and they will tell you that it is all about credibility when you self-disclose to the DOJ or when you are in negotiations with the DOJ over a potential FCPA penalty. I regularly hear Stephen Martin and Mike Volkov say precisely that when they talk about their experiences from working for the US government. If you do not allow your investigators access to all relevant documents and those witnesses under your control, the DOJ will most probably not consider the results of your investigation valid. The DOJ may not even consider your exertions worthy of a good-faith effort.

One thing is also very relevant for the compliance practitioner. If your outside counsel disavows him or herself from the company’s interpretation of it going forward, you are in big trouble. Even the WSJ, in its Op-Ed piece said, “FIFA’s moral failure stands out.”

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 4,892 other followers