Use Planes, Trains and Automobiles to get to Compliance Week 2013

To say I am excited would be putting it mildly. Yes that most premier of compliance related conferences is on the short horizon; Compliance Week 2013 is nearly upon us. It will be from May 20-22 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. As usual, Matt Kelly and his outstanding team have put together a first rate program for the General Counsel (GC), compliance practitioner (in-house or outside counsel), FCPA Bar/FCPA Inc. or even Mike Volkov’s good friends, the FCPA Paparazzi. If there is one national compliance conference that you can attend each year, for my money, this is the event.

As Matt Kelly has said, the theme of Compliance Week 2013 is “Seeing All the Data” and is designed as “a testament to how vital it is that compliance executives have visibility into all the information and operations at their enterprises. That could be anything from tracking all your third parties, or monitoring all the data your business collects about customers, or seeing all the regulatory risks you face as you build a risk-management program.” This theme is certainly appropriate as I believe that 2013 will be the year that the use of data in transaction;  third party; relationship and all other forms of ongoing monitoring will make any compliance program more robust. There are several sessions where these topics will be explored, including the following: Continuous Transaction Monitoring That Works, the Kroll Benchmarking Report, Mapping Data on Information Governance, Automating Third Party Risk, and Financial Reporting. This plethora of sessions speaks to the emergence of technology as a tool to support compliance.

Another key theme of Compliance Week 2013 is leadership. The first day of the conference is the subject of leadership. The first keynote speaker on Day One is Ed Breen, the chairman and former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Tyco International Ltd, who had to pick up the tatters of that company in 2002, as his predecessor went off to prison, and then rebuild the entire operation. The second keynote speaker on Day One is retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie, former head of U.N. peacekeeping forces in Yugoslavia, Central America, Middle East and Vietnam. Some of the sessions on Day One regarding leadership will focus on the practical; how to position the compliance department as an asset rather than an obstacle; how to craft a Code of Conduct that fits your business and culture; how to do business in India, Latin America, and elsewhere.

For the FCPA consigliori amongst you, I will once again be leading a conversation on the most recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) developments. With the recent Parker Drilling Company and Ralph Lauren Corporation resolutions and the various individuals who have been indicted or have pled out, it promises to be an interesting and informative time for anyone interested in all things FCPA. If it turns out that after my session you are still craving more insight about effective compliance with the FCPA there will be a session entitled “FCPA Guidance, Right From the Source”. This session will address any lingering questions you may have about the FCPA guidance published last fall by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The panel will include the top FCPA enforcers from both the DOJ and SEC, who will offer their latest thinking on anti-bribery enforcement and answer questions from the audience about best practices and putting agency guidance to good use.

If your compliance challenges reach beyond the FCPA, there will be sessions which deal with broader compliance themes. In the area of export control, one conversation will have regulators who will discuss issues related to sponsoring a foreign-born worker here in the United States; some of the implications of the export control reform effort on investigations and prosecutions; and the absolute requirement to know your customer. There will also be a session which showcases the Boeing Co.’s approach to trade compliance, from monitoring regulatory changes to developing processes that simplify compliance and examples of how the Boeing program was implemented in its business units.

If internal controls are more to your taste or needs, then check out the panel discussion regarding FMC Corp. You will hear from the company’s internal control team that implemented an automated system to collect and monitor financial data: the software they used; the controls they streamlined; the high-level components of internal controls they did not automate, and the results so far. More focused on training? One session will discuss how to align business and compliance objectives with training, how to ensure you get the data you need to demonstrate progress, and what tools you can use to deliver training to a diverse workforce cost effectively. If you want to move beyond training and into embedding compliance into your company’s DNA, check out this session “Beyond Training: Articulating & Embedding Company Values”. This session will discuss how organizations with the most ethical rigor want to embed their cultural values in everything they do, so employees know how to conduct themselves in any circumstance, not just in moments of obvious crisis.

So whether it’s by plane, train or automobile, I hope that you can get to Compliance Week 2013. To help you do so, I have been authorized to offer a discount to readers of my blog. For registration and information, click here.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

DPAs and NPAs – Useful Tools to Achieve Compliance

The debate on whether the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) has become lively again over the past couple of weeks. Last week, there was a panel hosted by the Corporate Crime Reporter conference at the National Press Club. The panel was moderated by Steven Fagell, a partner at Covington & Burling LLP, and the panelists included Denis McInerney, the Criminal Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David Uhlmann, the former chief of the Environmental Crimes Section at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and currently a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, the FCPA Professor, Michael Koehler, Kathleen Harris, a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP in London, and Anthony Barkow, a partner at Jenner & Block in New York.

The FCPA Professor wrote about the conference in two posts this week. The second post, entitled “Seeing the Light from the ‘Dark Ages’”, reported on the panel discussion. In this post, the Professor flatly says that DPAs and NPAs should be abolished in the context of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement and that a compliance defense should be added to the FCPA. In the other corner stands Mike Volkov, who said in a recent post, entitled “The Continuing Controversy Over DPAs and NPAs”, that DPAs and NPAs are part of the growing arsenal of prosecutorial tools that can be brought to bear by the DOJ and now the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Professor previously articulated his views against DPAs and NPAs last fall in a post entitled “Assistant Attorney General Breuer’s Unconvincing Defense Of DPAs / NPAs”. In that post he said that the “use of NPAs or DPAs allow “under-prosecution” of egregious instance of corporate conduct while at the same time facilitate the “over-prosecution” of business conduct.” The ‘under-prosecution’ comes “because they [DPAs and NPAs] do not result in any actual charges filed against a company, and thus do not require the company to plead to any charges, allow egregious instances of corporate conduct to be resolved too lightly without adequate sanctions and without achieving maximum deterrence.” The ‘over-prosecution’ comes “because of the “carrots” and “sticks’ relevant to resolving a DOJ enforcement action often nudge companies to agree to these vehicles for reasons of risk-aversion and efficiency and not necessarily because the conduct at issue actually violates the law.” Volkov, being a former prosecutor, says that “Prosecutors like to have a variety of tools. An up or down decision system – indict or decline to indict – does not give prosecutors any ability to address the hard cases, where they are more inclined to decline prosecution rather than indict.”

However, I am neither a former prosecutor, like Volkov, nor a former white collar defense lawyer, like the Professor. I am a recovering trial lawyer who then went in-house. From this background I think that there is another line of reasoning as to why DPAs and NPAs are useful FCPA compliance enforcement tools and that line of reasoning is certainty. The primary reason for the prosecution and a company entering into a DPA/NPA is certainty. The one thing I learned in almost 20 years of trying cases is that nothing is certain when you leave the final decision to an ultimate trier of fact who is not yourself, whether that trier of fact be a jury, judge or arbitrator. The most important thing for a company is certainty and that is even more paramount when a potential criminal conviction looms over its corporate head. Certainty is equally critical for the prosecution. No matter how ‘slam dunk’ the facts are, or appear to be, once a prosecutor turns over the final decision in a case to another trier of fact; the prosecution has lost certainty in the final decision. Every corporate defendant who goes to trial can and should raise all procedural and factual defenses available to it. No prosecutor can ever be 100% certain that it will win every court ruling or that a guilty conviction will be upheld on appeal. However, a DPA/NPA can bring certainty. For a company, certainty in its rights and obligations, for the prosecution the same is true.

There was another article which considered the panel discussion held at the Corporate Crime Reporter conference entitled “McInerney Defends Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements”. This article included quotes from David Uhlmann, who said that he believes, “This is about a profound ambivalence in parts of the Department about the very notion of corporate criminality.” Uhlmann believes that it this ambivalence which has driven the use of DPAs. He believes that the DOJ should make an “up or down” decision on whether a corporation should be prosecuted or not. He was quoted as saying “There is no more important role that the Justice Department plays than its role investigating and prosecuting crime. And if the Justice Department believes that a particular case warrants criminal prosecution, it should bring criminal charges. It should not sacrifice criminal prosecution to a private agreement never entered in court, never overseen by a judge in any meaningful way that doesn’t involve any public hearing, that doesn’t involve any corporate officials coming into the courtroom admitting guilt. On the other hand, if the Justice Department doesn’t believe that a criminal prosecution is necessary or warranted, then they should decline. They should decline prosecution in favor of — in most cases they have the option of civil or administrative enforcement.”

The Professor had a slightly different take on the use of DPAs in the context of criminal prosecutions of corporations. He was quoted as saying, “The Department has become so uncomfortable with the traditional notions of corporate criminal liability that they have constructed and indeed championed this alternative reality that is equally problematic.” Further, “These resolutions have had a troubling, distortive and toxic effect on this one area of law,” Koehler concluded. “There is no judicial scrutiny of most fcpa enforcement theories.” And, lastly, “Of course, the Justice Department is in favor of these because it makes their job easier. Of course, the FCPA bar and FCPA Inc. is in favor of these it expands the market for legal services.”

Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General McInerney made clear that he is not ambivalent at all about corporate criminal liability and specifically stated this. So let me speak from the perspective of a lawyer from Houston, who has represented companies in the energy space for quite some time. The frustration that boiled over from the lack of prosecutions regarding the financial troubles of the recent years should not obscure the fact that the DOJ has and will continue to pursue criminal cases against corporations.

But to paraphrase Joe Jackson, something else is going on ‘round here with prosecutions of corporate criminal conduct and the use of DPAs/NPAs. While one role of the DOJ is to prosecute law breakers; I believe that another role of the DOJ is to increase and encourage compliance with laws. The DPA/NPA debate does not stand in a vacuum. I believe that by offering incentives for companies to self-disclose and cooperate, the DOJ is increasing compliance with the FCPA. If there is no incentive to cooperate, there will be none. Period. If a company will face a criminal indictment or charge if it investigates a matter and self-discloses to the DOJ, how many companies will do so? McInerney was quoted as saying, “You are disincentivizing companies in terms of doing the right thing. You are not crediting companies for doing the right thing.”

Now let me take the flip side; Arthur Anderson. For all the howls that there is no empirical evidence that indicting and convicting companies puts them out of business; I am certainly not persuaded. I saw it happen, here in Houston. Was it in the interest of the US government to put Arthur Anderson out of business? Did it further the policies of this country to go from the Big Four to the Big Three? What about all the Arthur Anderson employees who did not work on the Enron account, what policy did it further to have them lose everything they invested in their professional life? If DPAs/NPAs are less draconian in their effect than destruction of a corporation’s existence, does that make them somehow less useful? If the DOJ wants to put such a factor into their decision making, I find that to be an appropriate calculus.

As to the charge that the FCPA Bar/FCPA Inc. used DPAs/NPAs to expand their market for work? [Full disclosure - I am a member of the FCPA Bar and ergo, FCPA Inc.] I think that it is the job of a lawyer to advise his or her clients on their legal obligations and to assist in fulfilling those obligations. Is it in my own myopic self-interest to advocate compliance with the FCPA? Or am I a part of the FCPA Bar and Inc. which assists companies to comply with a now 35 year old law? Whichever answer you prefer, I believe that there is more compliance now and that the use of DPAs/NPAs is a contributing factor to this increased compliance.

Another panelist, Anthony Barkow posited yet another angle. He said “one the primary policy justifications — or certainly a significant policy justification — is — getting DPAs and NPAs is easy. “It’s a lot easier than charging a company,”” Barkow said. “And it’s a lot easier than charging it and to try to get a plea.” While I do not pretend to know the intricacies of obtaining an indictment or going before a grand jury, it is always easier to settle something rather than try a case. But that does not mean any less work goes on, either from the corporate side or especially from the government side. FCPA enforcement actions are huge, document intensive cases and from what little I know of the process, the DOJ works quite hard to craft an appropriate resolution for each case. Further, there are multiple levels of review in the DOJ so many sets of eyes look at these matters. So while it may be easier to reach a resolution rather than charging and criminally trying a corporation, that does not mean in any way, shape or form that this work is easy. The work is hard, time intensive and takes literally thousands of man-hours by all parties involved to reach any resolution. Simply because a new enforcement tool is available, which is short of a criminal indictment and trial, does not mean that it is not a useful tool and should not be used.

Mike Volkov ended his post with the following, “The debate will continue – I have no doubt of that.” I would certainly second that notion. But from where I sit the use of DPAs/NPAs has improved compliance with the FCPA because their use has given corporations a real incentive to thoroughly investigate allegations of bribery and corruption and then work with the government to appropriately remediate the situation.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

And Then There Was One – Willbros Related FCPA Enforcement Continues

Last week, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the sentencing of Paul G. Novak, a former consultant of Willbros International, Inc., a subsidiary of the Houston based Willbros Group, for his role in a conspiracy to pay more than $6 million in bribes to government officials of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and officials from a Nigerian political party. According to the DOJ Press Release announcing the sentencing, “Novak pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and one substantive count of violating the FCPA. Novak admitted that from approximately late-2003 to March 2005, he conspired with others to make a series of corrupt payments”. Novak was sentenced to serve 15 months in a federal prison.

The sentencing continues the long running saga of the company over efforts by Willbros, Novak, certain employees and others to make a series of corrupt payments totaling more than $6 million to various Nigerian government officials and officials from a Nigerian political party to assist Willbros and its joint venture partner, a construction company based in Mannheim, Germany, in obtaining and retaining the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS) Project, which was valued at approximately $387 million. The EGGS project was a natural gas pipeline system in the Niger Delta designed to relieve existing pipeline capacity constraints.

The company itself paid $32.3 million and entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) to settle civil and criminal FCPA charges with the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “Willbros Resolves FCPA Offenses”, “the FCPA violations involved former operations in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nigeria.” The DOJ’s “information included substantive violations of the FCPA’s antibribery provisions and violations of the books and records provisions. All twelve counts relate to operations in Nigeria, Ecuador and Bolivia during the period from 1996 to 2005. The SEC’s complaint alleged civil violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, the antibribery provisions, and the reporting, books and records and internal controls provisions.” The company paid $22 million to settle the DOJ’s criminal case and $10.3 million relating to the SEC’s civil enforcement action. The company agreed to a three-year DPA with the DOJ and had a corporate monitor.  The company successfully completed its DPA, which was discharged in 2012.

In addition to the charges against the company and Novak, three former Willbros employees were also indicted over the FCPA violations. According another post by the FCPA Blog, entitled “Prison for Ex-Willbros Execs”, two of these former Willbros executives received and successfully served prison time. “Jim Bob Brown, 48, was sentenced in federal court in Houston to one year and one day in prison and fined $17,500; Jason Edward Steph, 40, was sentenced to 15 months and fined $2,000. Steph, who once served as general manager of on-shore operations for Willbros International, pleaded guilty in November 2007. He said in his plea that in 2005 he, Brown, and others arranged to pay about $1.8 million in cash to Nigerian officials. Brown pleaded guilty in September 2006 to conspiracy to violate the FCPA.” This brings the sentencing for Willbros related FCPA violations up to date as the following:

Sentencing Box Score

Entity or Person	Fine	DPA Time and Resolution	Jail Time
Willbros Group, Inc. and Willbros International Inc.	$22MM to DOJ$10.30MM to SEC	3 year DPA with Monitor. Successfully completed.
Jim Bob Brown	$17,500.00		12 months and one day in prison, 2 years supervised release.
Jason Steph	$2,000.00		15 months in prison, 2 years supervised release
Paul Novak	$1MM		15 months in prison, 2 years of supervised release

A third former company executive, James Tillery, had been previously charged with conspiring to bribe Nigerian and Ecuadorian government officials to obtain and retain gas pipeline construction and rehabilitation business from state-owned oil companies in those countries. Tillery was indicted for one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, two counts of violating the FCPA in connection with the authorization of specific corrupt payments to officials in Nigeria and Ecuador. Tillery was alleged to be a Willbros International employee and executive from the 1980s through January 2005. From 2002 until January 2005, he served as executive vice president and later as president of the company. Novak was an employee in the mid-1990s and later worked as an oil and gas consultant in Nigeria, purporting to provide consulting services to companies in that field.

Interestingly, in 2010, Tillery was arrested in Lagos, Nigeria. As reported by the FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “Tillery’s Extraction”, he was “seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Lagos and is being held by American authorities.” However, at some point later, the process was ceased due to intervention by the “Nigerian high court had halted the extradition at least until the end of the month because due process wasn’t followed.” In yet another twist to the saga, Tillery had apparently renounced his US citizenship and “had since naturalized as a Nigerian.” The FCPA Blog quoted a report from a Nigerian press source who said “normal extradition procedures weren’t followed and characterized Tillery’s arrest as an “extraction” and a “forceful extradition.””

So, now there is one left from the Willbros FCPA enforcement action, that being James Tillery. The Willbros bribery scheme was one of the most comprehensive and certainly one of the early cases in the post-2004 increase in growth regarding enforcement actions. It will be interesting to see if Tillery ever has to answer the charges brought against him in connection with this matter.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

From the Compact Model to the Luxury Model – Managing Your Third Party Risk

I am currently attending the Hanson Wade Oil and Gas Supply Chain Compliance conference in Houston. The event is excellent and the presentations have been ‘spot on’ for the nuts and bolts of how to do compliance. As the conference is in Houston, a number of the speakers and attendees are from energy companies but the concepts that are being discussed apply to all companies which have an anti-corruption or anti-bribery compliance program. One of the things that came through each of the presentations was that as compliance programs mature, many companies are developing programs which are more tailored towards the risks that companies face, which are ascertained through more sophisticated risk assessments and management of those risks.

This pattern is certainly consistent with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance which says that a company should assess its risks and manage its risks. From this starting position, a company can then put together a well thought out and reasoned approach to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance. Many of the presentations dealt with third parties and the differing responses and approaches companies have developed for the specific risks that they have uncovered.

Clearly third party risk mitigation through due diligence is key. How much due diligence is enough? One speaker said that it is a balancing call to determine the right amount. There were several presentations which spoke about the increasing use of technology to assist companies in this process. One speaker, a former federal prosecutor, said that one of the things that she looked for when a prosecutor was the ‘thoughtful analysis’ that the FCPA Guidance speaks about. To this end she believes that the human element will always be important because prosecutors want to see the thought process of not only how your program is designed but how you have crafted your risk mitigation based upon the information that you have assessed.

One of the speakers listed some of the factors to begin the review of your third parties. Recognizing that there is no one all-encompassing list, she suggested the following:

1. How many third parties do you have?
2. Where are these third parties located?
3. Industry or sector do you conduct business?
4. What is the relationship of the third party to a foreign government or state owned enterprise?
5. Are the owners of the third party related at all to government employees?
6. Is the use of the third party a business necessity or not? Why do you need to use sales representatives?
7. What are the reputations and qualifications of the third parties? Can they do what you need them to do from a commercial perspective?
8. How much control will you have over the third parties? Contrast the control that you have over sales agents with the lesser amount of control that you have over distributors and joint ventures.

From the answers to some of these questions you can begin to craft your third party due diligence inquiries. I was intrigued by one speaker who speech contrasted the steps that you might take with a lower risk third party with that of a higher risk third party. She likened the lower risk approach to that of a compact car and set out the following suggestions:

• Rank each third party by the risk you have assessed;
• Perform an Internet search on the third party;
• Perform reference checks on the third party;
• Interview control persons involved with the third party;
• Agreement to abide by anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws;
• Insert appropriate compliance terms and conditions in your third party contracts.

She contrasted the Compact model with what she termed the ‘Luxury model’ requirements of a third party program:

• Prioritize your third parties by risk;
• Appoint a Business Unit sponsor for each third party;
• Develop a detailed third party application;
• Perform an electronic records search on each third party;
• Also perform independent screening of each third party;
• Perform reference checks on each third party;
• Perform site visits and interviews of each third party;
• Have each third party acknowledgement your company’s Code of Conduct;
• Require each third party  to go through ethics training;
• Create a company committee, consisting of internal business, legal and compliance representatives to review your high risk third parties;
• Insert compliance terms and conditions into each third party contract;
• Require both internal and external audits of each third party;
• Perform annual updates on your third parties; and
• Perform quarterly electronic database rescreening.

There was also a discussion of some common Red Flags that you should be on the outlook for. They included:

• Excessive commissions paid to third parties;
• Unreasonable discounts given to third parties such as distributors;
• Vaguely described services in a third party contract or invoice back to your company;
• A third party which is in a different line of business than the one you want to hire to assist your company;
• Close association by the third party with a Foreign Official;
• Retention of the third party is required by a Foreign Official;
• The third party is a shell company located offshore; and
• Payments made to the third party are in a country different from the location where the third party’s services are delivered.

The concepts I derived from this presentation is that you should assess and manage your risks. If you determine them to be low, the Compact Model may work for you. If your third party risks are high, then the Luxury Model may be more appropriate. If you use a thoughtful and reasoned approach, you can navigate this area. But always Document, Document and then Document what you have done and why.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

FCPA Prosecutions Against Individuals? Check Out April

One of the oft-heard criticisms of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the lack of individual prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). That may well be on its way to changing as April 2013 may become known as “FCPA Individuals Month” for the charges and enforcement actions brought against various individuals for FCPA violations. The DOJ and SEC used several different types of enforcement actions, both criminal and civil, against a variety of individuals over the past month.

I.                   BizJet

One group of charges was the four enforcement actions involving individuals concerning BizJet. The lineup of those three BizJet executives and one employee involved in these enforcement actions is as follows:

1. Bernd Kowalewski – President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO);
2. Peter DuBois – Vice President of Sales and Marketing;
3. Neal Uhl – Vice President of Finance; and
4. Jald Jensen – Regional Sales Manager

Defendants DuBois and Uhl pled guilty in January, 2012 and had their pleas unsealed on April 5, 2013. Defendants Kowalewski and Jensen were charged by Criminal Indictment, also in January, 2012, but are still at large today. The DOJ Press Release states that “The two remaining defendants are believed to remain abroad.” The bribes were characterized as “commission payments” and “referral fees” on the company’s books and records. Payments were made from both international and company bank accounts here in the United States. In other words, this was as clear a case of a pattern and practice of bribery, authorized by the highest levels of the company, paid through US banks and attempts to hide all of the above by mis-characterizing them in the company’s books and records.

II.                Alstom

Two individuals from the company later identified as Alstom were charged or had their charges made public in April. According to a DOJ Press Release dated April 16, 2013, “Frederic Pierucci, 45, a current company executive [of Alstom] who previously held the position of vice president of global sales for the Connecticut-based U.S. subsidiary, was charged in an indictment unsealed yesterday in the District of Connecticut with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to launder money, as well as substantive charges of violating the FCPA and money laundering.” Pierucci was arrested. A former Alstom executive, “David Rothschild, 67, of Massachusetts, a former vice president of sales for the Connecticut-based U.S. subsidiary, pleaded guilty on Nov. 2, 2012, to a criminal information charging one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.”

In a post by the FCPA Professor, entitled “Current And Former Alstom Employees Charged In Connection With Payments In Indonesia”, he stated the two were involved with the following: “The conduct at issue concerned the Tarahan coal-fired steam power plant project in Indonesia.” Both were charged around the same set of facts. Pierucci and Rothschild, together with others, paid bribes to officials in Indonesia, including a member of Indonesian Parliament and high-ranking members of Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), the state-owned and state-controlled electricity company, in exchange for those officials’ assistance in securing a contract for the company to provide power-related services for the citizens of Indonesia, known as the Tarahan project. The charges allege that, in order to conceal the bribes, the defendants retained two consultants purportedly to provide legitimate consulting services on behalf of the power company and its subsidiaries in connection with the Tarahan project. In reality, however, the primary purpose for hiring the consultants was allegedly to use the consultants to pay bribes to Indonesian officials.

The Pierucci Indictment specified the following Counts for violations of the FCPA involving the first consultant.

Count	Date	Means and Instrumentalities of Interstate and International Commerce
Two	11/16/2005	Wire transfer in the amount of $200,064 from Power Company’s Connecticut bank account to Consultant A’s bank account in Maryland for the purpose of bribing Official 1.
Three	1/4/2006	Wire transfer in the amount of $200,064 from Power Company’s Connecticut bank account to Consultant A’s bank account in Maryland for the purpose of bribing Official 1.
Four	3/7/2007	Wire transfer in the amount of $200,064 from Power Company’s Connecticut bank account to Consultant A’s bank account in Maryland for the purpose of bribing Official 1.
Five	10/5/2009	Wire transfer in the amount of $66,688 from Power Company’s Connecticut bank account to Consultant A’s bank account in Maryland for the purpose of bribing Official 1.

III.             Frederic Cilnis

In a blog post, entitled “The Danger of FCPA “Proactive” Investigations”, Mike Volkov stated “At the recent Dow Jones Compliance Symposium in Washington, D.C., an FBI official warned the attendees that the Shot Show debacle would not deter law enforcement from using proactive investigations techniques. It was a stark warning because it was realized in less than thirty days.” This was dramatically demonstrated with the arrest of Frederic Cilnis.

An article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “FBI sting says that ‘agent’ sought to have mining contracts destroyed”, it was reported that “Frederic Cilins held the last of a series of meetings with the widow of an African dictator to discuss what she was going to do with some sensitive documents.” What were these ‘sensitive documents’? The FT reported that it had seen “some of the documents” and “According to one copy of a contract seen by the FT” it appeared to agree to pay $4m the wife of the then President of the country to help to secure rights to a mining concession in Guinea. Unfortunately for Cilins he “did not realise that the woman he was talking to was wearing a wire and that FBI agents were watching. As he left the meeting, the agents arrested him carrying envelopes filled with $20,000 in cash, the indictment says. That was a pittance compared with the $5m he was taped offering the dictator’s widow during what US authorities say was a two-month campaign to tamper with a witness and destroy records.”

IV.              Uriel Sharef

Uriel Sharef was a former officer and board member of Siemens. According to the SEC Press Release announcing resolution of his matter, “The settlement resolves the Commission’s civil action against Sharef for his role in Siemens’ decade-long bribery scheme to retain a $1 billion government contract to produce national identity cards for Argentine citizens. The final judgment, to which Sharef consented, enjoins him from violating the anti-bribery and related internal controls provisions of the FCPA and orders him to pay a $275,000 civil penalty, the second highest penalty assessed against an individual in an FCPA case.”

The FCPA Professor, in his April 19 Friday Roundup, posed the following “The burning question of course is whether the SEC would have prevailed against Sharef if he put the SEC to its burden of proof. As highlighted in this previous post, Sharef’s co-defendant, Herbert Steffen, did just that and in February Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed the SEC’s complaint against Steffen finding that personal jurisdiction over Steffen exceeded the limits of due process.” However, the SEC Press Release seemed to anticipate this query by stating that “Sharef met with payment intermediaries in the United States and agreed to pay $27 million in bribes to Argentine officials. Sharef also enlisted subordinates to conceal the payments by circumventing Siemens’ internal accounting controls.”

In the month of April, the US enforcement agencies certainly seemed to be answering the questions about bringing FCPA criminal charges and civil complaints against individuals. You may quibble about the sentences handed out in the BizJet case but that is another discussion for another day. For those who may have thought that the use of wire taps, cooperating witness and other proactive federal law enforcement techniques may not be used in FCPA cases after the Gun Sting cases dismissals, such techniques were used in both the BizJet matters and the action against Cilnis. Lastly, one phone call to the US may not create in personam jurisdiction but if you come to the US and engage in conduct which violates the FCPA, personal jurisdiction will attach.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

My FCPA and Bribery Act Musings Continue

This past week, my second book, “Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act” was released. Over the past few years I have tried to provide the compliance practitioner with solid information that can be used to implement, review and enhance a US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act based compliance program. I am often asked to collect my blog posting regarding what are the current best practices for an anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance program. In other words, what are the specifics of a compliance program. This volume will provide the compliance practitioner with information that can be used for the ‘nuts and bolts’ of compliance.

Using the format of the most recent US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)” [the “FCPA Guidance”]; I have included some of my thoughts on what you can do to create and maintain a best practices compliance program. I have also included some thoughts on how to create and maintain such a compliance program using the Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance regime under the UK Bribery Act.

I was honored to have the FCPA Professor, Mike Koehler, pen the forward and he said, in part, “In the current global marketplace, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) risk needs to be on the radar screen of most companies – large and small, public and private, and across industry sectors. Given the current enforcement theories of the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, FCPA risk is not always apparent from reading the statute. There is no way for business organizations to truly eliminate FCPA risk, but such risk can be effectively managed and minimized through pro-active policies and procedures and other means of risk assessment.”

I hope that you can use this volume, in conjunction with the FCPA Guidance and the Ministry of Justice’s Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance program, to implement or enhance your compliance regime. Both the FCPA Guidance and Six Principles make clear that there is no ‘one size fits all’ compliance program. The key is to assess your company’s risks and to manage those risks appropriately. This volume will help you to determine the type and scope of program that is appropriate for your company and will assist your compliance efforts going forward.

Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act is available exclusively on amazon.com. For a copy, click here.

Actions Taken During a FCPA Enforcement Action-Lessons from Parker Drilling and Ralph Lauren

In the two most recent corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to communicate not only what they believe constitutes a best practices compliance program but equally importantly what actions a company can engage in which will significantly reduce a company’s overall fine and penalty. These matters involved Parker Drilling Company (Parker Drilling) and the Ralph Lauren Corporation. Parker Drilling received a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and Ralph Lauren sustained a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).

Fines and Penalties

Parker Drilling’s conduct earned it an “approximately 20 percent reduction off the bottom of the fine range” which suggested a fine of between $14.7MM to $29.4MM. The final DOJ fine was  $11,760,000. The company also agreed to pay disgorgement of $3,050MM plus pre-judgment interest of $1,040,818, to the SEC. Ralph Lauren  agreed to pay $882K to the DOJ and $593K in disgorgement and $141K in pre-judgment interest to the SEC.

Self-Disclosure

In the DOJ/SEC FCPA Guidance released last year one of the clear messages was that companies should self-disclose any potential FCPA violations. While this question is debated by the FCPA intelligentsia and in compliance/legal department across the country, one of the key takeaways is that companies should self-disclose. In the section on Declinations, which included stripped out information on six companies which received declinations to prosecute, one of the common factors was that each company self-disclosed its FCPA violation.

In the Ralph Lauren NPA, the DOJ stated that one of the factors which led to the NPA was “the Company’s timely, voluntary, and complete disclosure of the conduct”. This is contrasted with the Parker Drilling DPA, where there was no information listed regarding self-disclosure. In its Press Release announcing the resolution of the Parker Drilling matter, the DOJ stated it “stemmed from the DOJ’s Panalpina-related investigations.”

What Did You Do When You Found Out About It? Prong II – Extensive Cooperation

Both companies provided extensive cooperation to the DOJ and SEC throughout the pendency of their respective investigations. In the Ralph Lauren NPA, the DOJ detailed the company’s conduct by stating that “the Company’s extensive, thorough, and real-time cooperation with the Department, including conducting an internal investigation, voluntarily making employees available for interviews, making voluntary document disclosures, conducting a world-wide risk assessment, and making multiple presentations to the Department on the status and findings of the internal investigation and the risk assessment”. In the Parker Drilling DPA, the DOJ stated that “the Company’s cooperation, including conducting an extensive internal investigation and collecting, analyzing, and organizing voluminous evidence and information for the Department”.

What Did You Do When You Found Out About It? Prong I – Remediation

Implementing one of the prongs of McNulty’s Maxim No. 3, both companies engaged in extensive remediation during the investigations. The Ralph Lauren NPA stated that “the Company’s early and extensive remedial efforts already undertaken – including conducting extensive FCPA training for employees world-wide, enhancing the Company’s existing FCPA policy, implementing an enhanced gift policy as well as other enhanced compliance, control and anti-corruption policies and procedures, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents, terminating culpable employees and a third-party agent, instituting a whistleblower hotline, and hiring a designated corporate compliance attorney – and to be undertaken, including enhancements to its compliance program as described in Attachment B (Corporate Compliance Program);”.

Parker Drilling also engaged in extensive work to create a gold standard compliance program all the while undergoing its own internal investigation. According to the DPA, “the Company has engaged in extensive remediation, including ending its business relationships with officers, employees, or agents primarily responsible for the corrupt payments, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents and consultants, increasing training and testing requirements, and instituting heightened review of proposals and other transactional documents for all the Company’s contracts.” Parker Drilling also hired “a fulltime Chief Compliance Officer and Counsel who reports to the Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee, as well as staff to assist the Chief Compliance Officer and Counsel.” The Company worked to strengthen its internal controls. Lastly, and I hope that you remember this from the Morgan Stanley Declination, Parker Drilling implemented “a compliance-awareness improvement initiative and program that includes issuance of periodic anti-bribery compliance alerts.”

Self-Monitoring and Reporting to the DOJ

In an area that is sometimes overlooked in both DPAs and NPAs, both companies agreed to self-monitor the effectiveness of their compliance programs and make no less than annual reports to the DOJ. In its three-year DPA, Parker Drilling agreed to monitor and “that it will report to the Department periodically, at no less than twelve-month intervals during a three-year term, regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures”. In its two year NPA, Ralph Lauren agreed to monitor and “report to the Department periodically, at no less than twelve-month intervals during a two-year term, regarding remediation and implementation of the compliance program and internal controls, policies, and procedures.”

Both the DOJ and SEC continue to communicate to the compliance practitioner what they expect from companies in the way of a best practices compliance program and what a company should do if they discover a potential FCPA violation. These communications, through enforcement actions, DPAs, NPAs and Declinations, are consistent with the information provided by the DOJ/SEC in the FCPA Guidance. Both of these enforcement actions demonstrate that if a company gets ahead of the curve, it can significantly lessen its overall penalty and pain.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Don’t Spread Your Compliance Program Too Thin

“You do not want to be spread too thin”. When I heard that phrase a light bulb went off inside my head. It was uttered to me by Jan Farley, the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) of Dresser-Rand. I asked Jan what he meant by the phrase and he explained that you cannot stretch your compliance program so thin that you try and cover everything; so that you miss the larger Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act risks that your company faces. I thought about Jan’s phrase in the context of the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance. I have written that under the FCPA Guidance companies should have carefully designed and well thought out compliance programs.

If your company’s sales model is to use third parties, that is probably your highest risk, then prioritize your time and compliance budget on managing that risk, initially before you move on to other compliance risks. Conversely, if your sales model is to use employees, then put your time and effort into managing that risk, through training and monitoring employees regarding their interactions with foreign officials. Do not spend your time, budget and energy on managing the risk of low to no-risk parties and issues. There is no substitute for carefully thinking through your company’s risk profile.

Jan is one of several current CCOs in Houston who began their compliance department careers at Baker Hughes working for Jay Martin. Prior to joining Dresser-Rand, he was the Senior Ethics and Compliance Counsel – Eastern Hemisphere for Baker Hughes stationed in London, England. During Jan’s tenure at Baker Hughes it paid the then largest fine ever for FCPA violations ($44MM in 2007).  Baker Hughes was under a very robust Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and a Corporate Monitor and expended a significant amount of time, money and effort on its compliance program. This experience gave Jan an in-depth view of the issues in implementing and working with a FCPA compliance program in the corporate setting.

Jan’s comments also echo something that I believe is clear from the Guidance: Don’t focus on the small stuff. Indeed the Guidance states, “Thus, it is difficult to envision any scenario in which the provision of cups of coffee, taxi fare, or company promotional items of nominal value would ever evidence corrupt intent, and neither DOJ nor SEC has ever pursued an investigation on the basis of such conduct.” In other words, do not waste your compliance time, resource or energy around these small issues. However, if these small issues are a part of a larger systemic or long standing course of conduct that violates the FCPA, then the DOJ may well look into these issues. You will want to show the DOJ you are focusing on the “big stuff”.

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

In addition to being one of the many experienced compliance practitioners in Houston, Jan also speaks at various compliance conferences and events. He is doing so at the upcoming Hanson Wade Oil & Gas Supply Chain Conference in Houston from April 29 to May 2. Jan was recently interviewed in connection with the event.

Over the last year what changes have you seen with regard to FCPA implementation and enforcement action by the government?

Over the last year I haven’t seen any really big changes, but a steady course of enforcement of the laws and regulations. Of course, one of the big stories is the allegations against Wal-Mart out of Mexico. From that you can see how an issue raised in one country can call into question the potential for issues in other countries, and so you have a kind of knock-on effect and an expanded search for issues elsewhere.

Another big item this past year was the Department of Justice and SEC guidance issued in November. It is a very good consolidation of the information and views that have developed over the course of time. I think it is very beneficial to have and you should read and study it if you work in compliance.

A lot of people are also talking about the Department of Justice declination against pursuing any criminal penalties against Morgan Stanley. The DOJ acknowledged what a good anti-corruption program that Morgan Stanley had in place. I think that was the first time that had been specifically mentioned as a factor for declining to prosecute.

How has recent enforcement action and regulatory focus highlighted the need for an effective compliance program?

The enforcement actions over the last five or six years has been pretty steady. I think it’s clear that it’s not something that’s going to decrease any time soon. There is a steady focus in pursuing enforcement actions because the government is obtaining a lot of money from it and so that enables them to have the resources to keep pursuing these actions. So it will continue to be extremely important to have an effective compliance program.

What are the main challenges you face when it comes to remaining compliant?

I think giving the proper training and education to your employees and business partners regarding the importance of compliance with anti-corruption laws, and communicating the program to a diverse workforce across the world, whilst keeping the message fresh is a major challenge. In order to meet this challenge you’ve got to work to make the policies as simple and straightforward as they can be. Importantly, you want to be able to communicate those policies in the local language to be sure that they’re understood by your employees and business partners.

Also, it’s very important to have proper internal controls. You want to make sure that you’re closely reading your internal audit reports that your company is getting in the various countries. You can look to see what implications the reports have for your compliance program. And you want to make sure that internal audit is auditing for potential compliance issues.

I found Jan’s thoughts on don’t spread your compliance program too thin to be an excellent insight into how to assess and then manage the compliance risks that your company faces. His ideas echo the FCPA Guidance and put into words one of the very strong messages that is made clear throughout the Guidance. Take a look at your company’s risks and do not scatter your compliance resources everywhere or too thinly.

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

For full details on the Hanson Wade 3rd Annual Oil & Gas Supply Chain Conference, click here. Readers of this blog are entitled to a discount on the registration charge. So use the code FOXLAW13 when registering.

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

What To Do If Your Gut Says It’s Wrong: Lessons from Project Alpha

I often write about what can happen to companies who run afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Usually enforcement actions focus on companies and not individuals. However, as is often pointed out by commentators other than Mitt Romney, corporations are not humans but consist of people. It is individuals who engage in conduct that violates the FCPA, just as it is individuals who engage in conduct which violates other US securities laws.

I was reminded of this in an article by Loren Steffy, of the Houston Chronicle, entitled “She offers cautionary tale for corporate employees”. In this article Steffy writes about Helen Sharkey, who worked for Dynegy Inc, a Houston company which was involved in energy trading and gas transportation. Sharkey was an accountant who worked on an assignment known as Project Alpha, which Steffy wrote was “a $300 million scheme that inflated Dynegy’s cash flow.”

In an interview with Steffy she told him that she was the lowest of seven employees assigned to the project. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Sharkey and others disregarded the company’s external auditor’s advice that certain forms of risk-hedging involving derivative instruments, such as commodity price swaps and interest rate swaps, would defeat Dynegy’s goal of accounting for Alpha as an ordinary operating contract and require recording it as a financing. As reported by Steffy, “If the banks didn’t have risk, it meant the deal was a loan and required different accounting treatment.”

While the Enron Corporation is the poster child for corporate fraud in Houston, three Dynegy employees went to jail over Project Alpha: Sharkey; Gene Foster, who was Dynegy’s Vice President of Taxation during the relevant period; and Jamie Olis, who was Dynegy’s Senior Director, Tax Planning and International. Foster received a sentence of 15 months in jail. Olis, who went to trial, received a whopping sentence of 24 years by the trial judge, although this was later reduced to six years.

What did Sharkey think about the deal at the time? As quoted by Steffy, “Did I feel in my gut that it was wrong? Absolutely. Did I think it was illegal? No way.” Unfortunately Sharkey did not apparently have a mechanism that she could use to raise this concern that was in her gut.

What are some of the lessons that current compliance practitioners can draw from Sharkey, Dynegy and Project Alpha?

Hotlines

One of the results from the actions that companies like Dynegy, Enron and others was the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX). SOX required publicly traded companies to set up anonymous hotlines to allow employees to report company wrong-doing. This is enshrined in the FCPA world as one of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as set out in the Department of Justice (DOJ)/ SEC FCPA Guidance. Under the section entitled “Confidential Reporting and Internal Investigation”, it states, “An effective compliance program should include a mechanism for an organization’s employees and others to report suspected or actual misconduct or violations of the company’s policies on a confidential basis and without fear of retaliation. Companies may employ, for example, anonymous hotlines or ombudsmen.”

Generally, employees tend to trust hotlines maintained by third parties more than they do internally maintained systems. By submitting reports through an external hotline there is a perceived extra layer of anonymity and impartiality compared to a system developed in-house. This is because there can be a fear of retaliation by employees. This fear can destroy the effectiveness of the internal reporting process and poison the corporate culture. The hotline must be seen to offer the highest levels of protection and anonymity. To encourage employee participation, the hotline should allow them to bring their concerns directly to someone outside their immediate chain of command or workplace environment – especially when the complaint concerns an immediate superior. A third party provider is also more likely to bring specialist expertise that’s difficult to match within the organization.

Failure to Escalate

In almost every circumstance where a significant FCPA compliance violation has arisen, if the issue had been reported or at least sent up the chain for consideration, there is a good chance that the incident would not have exploded into a full FCPA compliance violation. Matthew King, Group Head of Internal Audit at HSBC, calls this concept “escalation” and he believes that one of the more key features of any successful compliance program is to escalate compliance concerns up the chain for consideration and/or resolution.

This means that in almost every circumstance regarding a compliance issue he had been involved with, at some point a situation arose where an employee did not report a situation or event up to an appropriate level for additional review. This failure to escalate leads to the issue not reaching the right people in the company for review/action/resolution and the issue later becomes more difficult and more expensive to deal with in the company. A company needs to have a culture in place to not only allow escalation but to actively encourage escalation. This requires that both a structure and process for this must exist. Then the company must train, train and train all of its employees. Lastly, while a whistleblower process or hotlines are necessary these should not be viewed as the only systems which allow an employee to escalate a concern.

The starkest example of which I am aware of this failure to escalate in the FCPA arena is the Hewlett-Packard (HP) matter involving its German subsidiary and allegation of bribery to receive a contract for the sale of hardware into Russia. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has reported that at least one witness has said that the transactions in question were internally approved by HP through its then existing, contract approval process. That witness, Dieter Brunner, a contract employee who was working as an accountant on the group that approved the transaction, said in an interview that he was surprised when, as a temporary employee of HP, he first saw an invoice from an agent in 2004. “It didn’t make sense,” because there was no apparent reason for HP to pay such big sums to accounts controlled by small-businesses, Mr. Brunner said. He then proceeded to say he processed the transactions anyway because he was the most junior employee handling the file, “I assumed the deal was OK, because senior officials also signed off on the paperwork”.

Training

Why is training of employees regarding a hotline and the ability to escalate important in the context of an anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance program? Training is recognized as one of the points in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program and one of the elements under the US Sentencing Guideline’s Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance Program. It is also recognized in Principle 5 of the Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance program as set out by the UK Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Lastly, it is recognized by the OECD in its 13 Good Practices for Internal Controls, Ethics and Compliance.

In the case of HP, think what position the company might be in today if Brunner had been trained on the company’s system for internally reporting compliance issues? If Brunner had escalated his concern that the payment to the agent “didn’t make sense” perhaps HP would not have been under investigation by governmental authorities in Germany and Russia. In the United States, both the DOJ and SEC have announced they are investigating the transaction, for potential FCPA violations. Further, HP is now investigating other international operations to ascertain if other commissions paid involved similar allegations of bribery and corruption as those in this German subsidiary’s transaction.

Dénouement

Steffy penultimate paragraph states, “her story lends insight into one of the most enduring questions that linger from a decade ago – how corrupt corporate cultures encouraged so many who considered themselves law-abiding citizens, to commit crimes, often without realizing it.” One of the things that I emphasize in training to employees is that if their guts turns in knots, the hair on the back of their neck stands up or if something doesn’t smell right, just raise your hand. You don’t have to know the ins and outs of the FCPA, but if something does not feel right, raise your hand and get the matter to someone who does know the ins and outs of the FCPA and who can thoroughly investigate the issue that you do not feel right about. If you do not do so, you may end up like Sharkey and, as Steffy writes as the final sentence of his piece, “The one time she wavered became a mistake she’ll regret the rest of her life.”

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013