The Avon FCPA Settlement – Part III

Today I conclude my 2014 blog posts with a final look at the Avon Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action. Before getting to the key lessons that a compliance practitioner may draw from this enforcement action, allow me to thank you for letting me be a part of your FCPA and greater compliance and ethics experience. This has been a memorable year in social media for me, both in blogging, publishing and podcasting. (If you have not listened to one of my podcasts please head over to the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report on the web or on iTunes and check it out.) I have learned quite a bit this year, in writing, podcasting and listening. I hope that you will continue to follow me in 2015 through my blogs, podcasts and via some of the other sites and magazines that I write for. I plan to publish more books, in both print and electronic format, and pen more long form articles that will provide a deeper dive into various topics that I think will be of interest to the FCPA compliance and ethics practitioners out there. But I am getting a bit ahead of myself so back to today’s topic and where we are on the Avon FCPA enforcement action, and the big question of what does it all mean for the compliance practitioner and companies worldwide?

And The Money Kept Rolling Out

Unlike Eva Peron and the Foundacion Eva Peron, Avon had the opposite problem; the money never seemed to stop rolling out for Avon. As the FCPA Professor said in his blog post, entitled “Issues to Consider from the Avon Enforcement Action”, “Avon’s FCPA scrutiny was also very expensive. For years, the whisper in the FCPA community was how expensive – and dragged out – FCPA’s internal investigation and pre-enforcement professional fees and expenses were. Not all companies disclose pre-enforcement action professional fees and expenses, but Avon did and those figures were approximately $500 million”. Even the Department of Justice (DOJ) questioned why the company’s investigative costs were so high.

In an article in Bloomberg News, entitled “Avon Bribe-Probe Clean-Up Neared $500 Million as Sales Cratered”, Tom Schoenberg and David Voreacos reported, “In a 2010 meeting, government officials took the unusual step of questioning why Avon’s legal costs were so high at that point, according to two people familiar with the meeting who weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly. Avon said its legal bills had ballooned in part because the company operated in more than 100 countries without consolidated transaction records, according to one of the people.” The article quoted Matthew Axelrod, former senior Justice Department official, who said, “Though unusual, DOJ may call in company counsel to discuss when an outside law firm is going too far afield from what is necessary.” He added the “DOJ doesn’t want a company to have to spend unnecessary millions of dollars on an internal investigation any more than the company itself does”.

If there is one over-riding lesson for all companies to take away from this enforcement action it is that the cost can quickly spiral far out of control and beyond anything you might budget for. While the events at issue took place in 2003-08, the clear import is that it is much cheaper to spend the money to have a compliance program in place now rather than roll the dice and wait. This may mean you need to look at your internal financial accounting systems to determine if they can be monitored adequately and efficiently, yet in a cost-effective manner. While I have not reviewed the internal controls component of this FCPA enforcement action, it is also clear that internal controls need to be in place to detect, in a timely manner, when something goes askance. Of course, if it is in your corporate culture to lie, cheat and steal, it really does not matter what the standard of your internal controls is because the powers that be will find a way around them.

Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Priest?

Henry II and his famous dictum surely seemed to exist at Avon corporate headquarters. If management wants sales accomplished in any way possible then that is the message that is communicated down the line to the troops in the field. Avon had a Code of Conduct that prohibited bribery and corruption, yet the company’s own internal investigation revealed that most company employees were not even aware such a document existed. There was no such thing as FCPA training at the time of the events in question. But more than simply the message of ‘Make Your Numbers; Make Your Numbers; (and then) Make Your Numbers’, Avon had a culture that actively hid criminal acts. For when credible information came to light that Avon China was violating the FCPA, the company went into full cover-up mode, even ordering the destruction of soft and hard copies of the Draft Audit Report. The cover-up was accomplished at the highest levels of the company, with the settlement documents noting the involvement of Avon Executive 1, Avon Executive 2 (believed to be the head of Avon’s Internal Audit function when he left the company), Avon Executive 3, another senior executive in Avon’s Internal Audit function, and two lawyers, Avon Attorney 1, who was identified as “a senior executive in the Office of the General Counsel at AVON” and Avon Attorney 2 who was identified as “an executive in the Office of the General Counsel at AVON”.

High Reward = High Risk

In their Bloomberg News article, Schoenberg and Voreacos reported that Avon was “among the first companies to obtain a license to sell products directly to consumers – the cornerstone of its business model – after Chinese authorities ended a ban on direct sales in 2006.” Further, “By July 2006, Avon had hired more than 114,000 door-to-door salespeople in China. [Then Avon CEO Andrea] Jung said at the time the company viewed the country as a potential $1 billion market. Sales in China surged 28 percent to $67.2 million in the company’s fourth quarter that year.” This means that in less than one year after receiving its license to do business in China, Avon China had one quarter of sales in excess of $60MM. That is quite a lot of Ding Dong, Avon Calling plus following up that doorbell ringing with some serious sales.

Here the lesson is that if there is a new business opportunity that results in an explosion of sales it is probably because of some high risk involved. That may be financial risk, it may be political instability risk, it may be weather-related risk, it may be currency fluctuations risk or it may be some other type of risk. When a business is regulated down from the national to the provincial to the municipality level, it probably means multiples of government interactions for permits and licenses to do business. The compliance function must be integrated into the business operations of a company well enough to be put on notice when such an opportunity presents itself, perform some type of risk assessment and then plan out and implement a strategy to manage those risks going forward. If the first time the compliance function hears about something askance from a FCPA perspective is when it is brought up by internal audit, it is already too late.

The Compliance Committee and Geronimo’s Cadillac

Just as Michael Murphy’s song Geronimo’s Cadillac was intended to show every irony he could ever think of about American culture in two words, the Avon Compliance Committee was about as ironic; although and admitted it is three words. For a corporate Compliance Committee is not simply a vehicle to bring and show off when someone might be around to take pictures. A corporate Compliance Committee has to function and be involved, actively, in an appropriate level of oversight. If a Compliance Committee is informed of credible allegations of a FCPA violation, it simply cannot accept information that it is ‘unsubstantiated’ at a later date. A Compliance Committee must be actively involved in the investigation, it must review the investigation protocol, review information and findings as they become known, direct outside counsel in the investigation and, finally, take charge to remediate the issues involved. It has to have real authority, real power and be taken seriously, not simply have a meaningless title of “Compliance Committee”.

As 2014 draws to a close, I for one am glad that the long Avon FCPA saga has at least come to this stage. For bribe payments totaling over $8MM, Avon has or will pay upwards of $750MM to get through the FCPA Professor’s “three buckets” of FCPA enforcement action costs. This staggering cost should be a clear lesson that now is the time to implement or enhance a compliance program. The number of persons effected by the fallout from this case start with the former head of the company, Andrea Jung, several high ranking executives, the company’s balance sheet and perhaps even some of the lawyers involved in the investigation of this matter. One of the first things that Jung’s replacement did was bring in new counsel to advise the company. After all, someone had to come up with the low-ball opening bid to the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of $11MM and then advise Avon to negotiate in public with them using that figure.

On that note, I wish everyone a safe New Year’s Eve and prosperous New Year.

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 II

I am back from my holiday break and am looking forward to many good ideas for blogs in the coming year. However before we get to 2015, I have to finish out some matters from 2014. Today I continue my look at the Avon Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action, which was announced earlier this month. In today’s post I will look at the bribery scheme and cover-up that Avon employed. Tomorrow I will conclude with some final lessons to be gleaned from the Avon enforcement action for both the compliance practitioner and greater corporate world. Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd. is referred to as ‘Avon China’ and Avon Products, Inc. (the US parent) is referred to as ‘Avon’.

With a sustained plan that one can only say was well thought out, Avon set out to conquer the Chinese market for door-to-door sales. To do so, Avon had to navigate a bureaucratic maze. This maze began with a Test License obtained in 2005 and later a national direct selling license together with approvals from each province and municipality where the company wanted to sell its products. To obtain the required licenses, the company set a bribery scheme which worked at all levels of the company’s China subsidiary, Avon China, and reached back to the home office in the US, Avon Products. Both of these entities were the subject of the FCPA enforcement action concluded earlier this month. The bribery scheme itself paid out over $8MM in bribes before it was concluded.

To facilitate this process Avon China set up a business unit entitled the Corporate Affairs Group and later a more focused sub-group as part of the scheme called the Direct Selling Special Task Force. These two groups led the company’s efforts to bribe its way into the China market. They did so through a variety of means, as set out in the settlement documents. Unless cited otherwise, the quotes below are from the Avon China Criminal Information.

Gifts

Avon was fond of giving very high priced gifts to various Chinese government officials. Inevitably, Avon China employees would falsely describe the gift itself in the company’s books and record. To add to this deception, Avon China would omit from the books and records not only who the gift was provided to but also the purpose of the gift. This part of the bribery scheme allowed the gifts of Louis Vuitton products to be described as a “public relations expense” and “Public Relations Business Entertainment”; while the gift of a Gucci bag was described as “business entertainment”.

Meals and Entertainment

This part of the bribery scheme was a clear favorite of Avon China. The aforementioned Direct Selling Special Task Force was ubiquitous in the meals and entertainment arena where its members simply used the term “relations” to refer to “things of value provided to government officials or goodwill that had been obtained by giving such things, including non-business meals and entertainment.” Specifically noted in this part of the bribery scheme were payments of approximately $8,100 described as “sales-business entertainment” provided to a government official so he would approve a product that did not meet Chinese government standards. Other false excuses provided were describing such payments as “business entertainment” and “employee ‘accommodation’ expenses”.

Non-Business Travel

Avon China doled out a huge amount of bribes through the mechanism of phony travel for alleged business purposes. Avon China would claim they were bringing various Chinese government officials (also Wives, Girlfriends and other family members) to locations for business-related travel but in reality the trips were mostly sight-seeing excursions, gambling junkets, a beach vacation and other entertainment which had nothing to do with business purposes. So a trip alleged to be a “site visit/study visit” to the corporate headquarters in New York City and the company’s research and development (R&D) facility in upstate New York became a $90,000, 18-day travel extravaganza to “Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Philadelphia, Seattle, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Washington DC.” (Oh, and one half-day at the company’s upstate New York R&D facility.) Other favorite venues for Chinese government officials and their families were the gambling mecca of Macau, Hong Kong, Hainan Island, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Sanya. Needless to say, none of these locations had any Avon corporate offices, manufacturing or R&D facilities.

Cash

Always a favorite of bribers everywhere, Avon did not neglect to lay out large amounts of cash. Avon China used a variety of orchestrations to hide these payments including simply stealing it from a (apparently) huge petty cash fund, directing Avon China employees to charge for non-existent expenses and keep the reimbursements from corporate, lying in the books and records by calling such bribe payments as “management expenses-government relations expenses” and even submitting “a handwritten certificate, purportedly from a Chinese government agency, falsely stating that the official would give the funds to the government bureau.”

Payment Through Third Parties

Using an entity identified as “Consulting Company A”, Avon China paid a large number of bribes throughout the period in question. Initially it should be noted that this entity raised numerous red flags that were never investigated or cleared. These began with the fact that it was a Chinese government official who recommended the retention of Consulting Company A to perform ‘lobbying’ services for Avon China. Thereafter the company performed no background investigation into the ownership structure of the company, did not include any compliance terms and conditions in the contract, did not even communicate to this third party of Avon’s Code of Conduct prohibition against bribery of government officials. Beyond these issues, in large part Consulting Company A never performed any legitimate services for Avon China. What Consulting Company A did provide to Avon China was a way to funnel bribe payments to Chinese government officials.

Corporate Connivance in Scheme (AKA The Cover-Up)

While all of the above was bad, one thing which catapulted the Avon FCPA bribery scandal into the realm of seriously bad was the company’s discovery of the bribery scheme and resulting cover-up. According to the Criminal Information for Avon Products, in 2005 a senior auditor in Avon’s internal audit group, “reported to Avon’s Compliance Committee, which was comprised of several senior Avon executives, that Avon China executives and employees were not maintaining proper records of entertainment for government officials” and that an Avon China executive had explained the practice “was intentional because information regarding that entertainment was ‘quite sensitive.’” This led to a Draft Audit Report, reviewed at the highest levels of Avon China and Avon in the US, which concluded that Avon China’s Corporate Affairs Group’s expenses included: “(1) high value gifts and meals that were offered to Chinese government officials; (2) the majority of expenses relating to gifts, meals, sponsorship and travel of substantial monetary value was to maintain relationships with government officials; (3) a third party was paid large amounts of money to interact with Chinese government officials but was not contractually required to follow the FCPA, was not monitored by Avon China, and was paid for vague and unknown services; and (4) the payments, and the lack of accurate, detailed records may violate the FCPA or other anti-corruption laws.”

So what was the company’s response to this information? The internal auditors who prepared the report were required to remove the above language and whitewash the report. Evidence of reviewed misconduct was reduced to two hand-written pages, which were then taken out of China and hand-carried to Avon’s corporate headquarters. All copies of the Draft Audit Report were ordered to be retrieved and destroyed. Finally, as noted in the Criminal Information of Avon China, in January 2007, an Avon executive reported to the Avon Compliance Committee “that the matter reported in 2005 regarding the potential FCPA violations by AVON CHINA executives and employees had been closed as “unsubstantiated” which terminated Avon’s investigation into AVON CHINA’s corrupt conduct.”

Tomorrow we take a look at some of the key lessons to be learned from Avon FCPA enforcement action.

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, 2014The v

A Visit from St. Nicholas BY CLEMENT CLARKE MOORE

 

 

 

 

 

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds;
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;
And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow,
Gave a lustre of midday to objects below,
When what to my wondering eyes did appear,
But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny rein-deer,
With a little old driver so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment he must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name:
“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donner and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
As leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
So up to the housetop the coursers they flew
With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too—
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a pedler just opening his pack.
His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples, how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow;
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath;
He had a broad face and a little round belly
That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly.
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight—
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!”

Compliance Lessons from Santa

We interrupt our Avon blog post series to announce that a large man, with a white beard and red suit, will visit all on Wednesday evening. In honor of Christmas I want to write about some of Santa’s business lessons, which I have adapted from an article in the Houston Business Journal, entitled “10 Valuable Business Lessons from Santa” by Harvey Mackay. They are adapted for a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner.

1. The value of giving – Aside from milk and cookies or perhaps a carrot for the reindeer, Santa does not receive anything in return for all the gifts he shares with others. That is the real spirit of giving: not expecting anything in return. The joy of giving is reward enough. If that is not the definition of a compliance practitioner, I don’t know what is.
2. Marketing and public relations – Would the far-flung work force know the CCO if he came to town because when Santa comes to town, everyone knows who he is. Santa’s image is everywhere and it’s my guess that he doesn’t pay a dime for the exposure. He attracts crowds wherever he goes. Businesses put him front and center in ads, decorations, even in big comfy chairs in prime locations in shopping malls. They practically beg him to show up. Can the same be said of your company’s CCO?
3. He hasn’t changed his basic look – Steady and constant; those are two words that you can associate with Santa. Mackay believes that “More people can identify Santa than the president. His distinctive style of dress will never get him on a best-dressed list. But he doesn’t concern himself with that. His message has remained the same: a simple “Ho, ho, ho.” He doesn’t drive the latest model car. He is who he is and is content with that. What he does is more important than fad or fashion.” The same should be with your message of doing business ethically and in compliance.
4. His attitude is contagious – Does your compliance function project a positive attitude, for Santa is “always positive, reminding young and old alike to be good for goodness’ sake. How he keeps track of who is naughty or nice doesn’t really matter — he encourages people to be their best. He rewards good behavior. And who doesn’t like to be recognized for trying?” Does your compliance function recognize employees for doing business the right way or simply penalize employees for stepping over the line?
5. Santa respects deadlines – Mackay believes that reliability is important in the business world. He wrote that Santa “knows from one December 25th to the next that he has customers to satisfy. He is beholden to the calendar. It wouldn’t work to try to stretch it into January or February.” If it is one thing that drives business types crazy it is when compliance (or legal for that matter) does not meet deadlines that it has agreed to meet.
6. Santa understands the value of tradition – This is one issue that compliance is not always the most sensitive to, whether it is through culture or language. If its language, call Jay Rosen at Merrill Brink to rectify that situation. If its culture, remember what Mackay intones, “Most of us have family or cultural traditions that bind us together. Businesses have traditions that customers anticipate. But have you ever noticed what happens when someone tries to change a long-held tradition? Santa knows better.”
7. Customer service is high on his priority list – Never ever forget that it is business folks who pay our salaries so we need to give them some great customer service. When they have a question, answer it. If they phone rings, pick it up. If you get an email asking for assistance, respond to it. As Mackay notes, Santa “aims to please, and he rarely disappoints. I’m guessing he reads every letter written in a childish scrawl before he makes his list. If you happen to overhear a conversation between Santa and a child asking for the hottest toy of the year, you will likely hear a promise to do his best, but he has some other great ideas, too. He won’t promise what he can’t deliver.”
8. Teamwork is central to his operation – The demands on Santa are enormous, yet he “understands that he can’t do it alone. A workshop full of elves and a team of nine little reindeer help him accomplish an impossible task year after year. I’ve heard there is magic involved, but I have no evidence to support it.” While you do not have to concern yourself with magic, use the corporate tools that are available to you. If you are resource constrained go to other disciplines and functions in the organization and work with them to further the goals of compliance.
9. He epitomizes leadership – Mackay writes that Santa “leads his team, but he also guides the rest of believers toward the right path. He is consistent with his values. He is patient. He works hard. He is forgiving of mistakes and loves what he does.” Compliance is no different.
10. He lives the wisdom of “love what you do and you’ll never work a day in your life” – Mackay affirms that you need to have a passion for what you do. He writes, “There can be no question that this guy wouldn’t want to do anything else. Santa couldn’t do what he has done for centuries without real enthusiasm for his efforts. Santa takes his work very seriously, but he doesn’t take himself seriously. He loves to laugh, make people happy, bring surprises, and spread good cheer. Santa understands that fun is good. a world full of serious problems, bringing a little happiness is a welcome relief. We can all do something to brighten someone else’s day.” I would hardily agree that you have to want to do compliance and if you have passion about it, others will take note.

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

 

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

The 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

It 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

 

Winter Begins in Valley Forge and the FCPA Professor Teaches in Miami

Today we celebrate one of the seminal turnarounds in US history for on this day in 1777, George Washington lead his beleaguered troops into winter quarters at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. At that point in time, things could hardly have looked bleaker for Washington and the Continental Army as 1777 came to a close. The British had successfully occupied Philadelphia, leading some members of Congress to question Washington’s leadership abilities. No one knew better than Washington that the army was on the brink of collapse. Though he had hoped to provide his weary men with more nutritious food and badly needed winter clothing, Congress had been unable to provide money for fresh supplies.

The winter at Valley Forge might have signaled the end of the American Revolution. Fortunately for the Continentals though, Washington did not give up. During this time Washington made several key additions to his officer corps, such as the Prussian General Friedrich von Steuben, who was tasked with implementing a new training regime, and appointed Nathanael Greene as Quartermaster General, relieving Washington of the duty of supply procurement. Washington, supported by a loyal officer corps, was now free to focus on strategies to beat the British. He was further buoyed by France’s agreement to join the revolutionaries in February 1778.

Once Washington’s detractors in Congress realized they could not sway his troops’ loyalty, they gave up on any secret plans to replace him. In March 1778, Washington led his troops, their bodies and supplies replenished and their confidence restored, out of Valley Forge to face the British again.

While you are considering the cold and starving Continental Army troops, you might think to warmer climes to consider attending one of the premier Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) educational events of 2015 as the FPCA Professor will put on his well-renowned FCPA Institute over two days, January 12 and 13. The event will be held in Miami and is hosted by the law firm of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt. While myself and others bemoan to him that he needs to get out on the speaking circuit so that we can hear more of his critique and analysis of FCPA enforcement and to learn from him, I was interested to see he is correcting this by leading his first Southern based FCPA Institute next month.

As clearly denominated by his moniker, the FCPA Professor, he teaches law with a specialization in the arena of the FCPA. The Professor’s stated goal in leading this Institute is “to develop and enhance fundamental skills relevant to the FCPA and FCPA compliance in a stimulating and professional environment with a focus on learning. Information at the FCPA Institute is presented in an integrated and cohesive way by an expert instructor with FCPA practice and teaching experience.”

Some of the topics to be covered, include the following:

• An informed understanding of why the FCPA became a law and what it seeks to accomplish;
• A comprehensive understanding of the FCPA’s anti-bribery and books and records and internal controls provisions and related enforcement theories;
• Various realties of the global marketplace which often give rise to FCPA scrutiny;
• The typical origins of FCPA enforcement actions including the prominence of corporate voluntary disclosures;
• The “three buckets” of FCPA financial exposure and how settlement amounts in an actual FCPA enforcement action are typically not the most expensive aspect of FCPA scrutiny and enforcement;
• Facts and figures relevant to corporate and individual FCPA enforcement actions including how corporate settlement amounts are calculated;
• How FCPA scrutiny and enforcement can result in related foreign law enforcement investigations as well as other negative business effects from market capitalization issues, to merger and acquisition activity, to FCPA related civil suits; and
• Practical and provocative reasons for the general increase in FCPA enforcement.

The Professor has said, “The FCPA Institute is different than a typical FCPA conference.  At the FCPA Institute, information is presented in an integrated and cohesive manner by an expert instructor with FCPA practice and teaching experience. Moreover, the FCPA Institute promotes active learning by participants through issue-spotting video exercises, skills exercises, small-group discussions and the sharing of real-world practices and experiences. To best facilitate the unique learning experience that the FCPA Institute represents, attendance at each FCPA Institute is capped at 30 participants. In short, the FCPA Institute elevates the FCPA learning experience for a diverse group of professionals and is offered as a refreshing and cost-effective alternative to a typical FCPA conference. The goal of the FCPA Institute is simple: to develop and enhance fundamental skills relevant to the FCPA, FCPA enforcement, and FCPA compliance best practices in a stimulating and professional environment with a focus on learning.”

In other words, it is what you have come to expect from the FCPA Professor; well-thought out reasoned analysis, practical knowledge and learning, and provocative thinking and assessment.

For information on the event, click here.

 

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

 

 

Ty Cobb and the Compliance Performance Appraisal Review

Today 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

Scrooge and Corporate Settlement Agreements

Although there seems to be a difference in the precise publication date between the online reference sites This Day in History and Wikipedia, today we celebrate the Charles Dickens’ work A Christmas Carol, which both sites acknowledge was published in 1843. This story has become well known and omnipresent in the Christmas season; in film, theater, radio, television, cartoon, opera and about every other form of media known to mankind. A Christmas Carol tells the story of a bitter old miser, Ebenezer Scrooge and his transformation into a gentler, kindlier man after visitations by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley and the Ghosts of Christmases Past, Present and Yet to Come.

The book was written at a time when the English were examining and exploring Christmas traditions from the past as well as new customs such as Christmas cards and Christmas trees. Dickens’ source materials for the tale appear to be many and varied, but are principally, the humiliating experiences of his childhood, his sympathy for the poor and various Christmas stories and fairy tales. A Christmas Carol has been credited as one of the greatest influences in rejuvenating the old Christmas traditions of England. Scrooge himself is the embodiment of winter, and, just as winter is followed by spring and the renewal of life, so too Scrooge’s cold, pinched heart is restored to the innocent goodwill he had known in his childhood and youth. It is hardy tale that should be retold and remembered each holiday season as one of the true spirits for celebration.

I considered this work by Dickens when I read a recently released article entitled “Improving Corporate Settlement Agreements” by The Fraud Guy, John Hanson. In this piece Hanson considers some shortcomings in a variety of corporate misconduct settlement agreements, where he believes “the Terms of most Agreements lack a full and practical appreciation for what constitutes an effective Program within a particular organization.” He articulates that “A key reason for this is because the parties to the Agreement miss the forest for the trees in that they too narrowly focus on Program sub-components (that piece of a Program associated with a particular risk, such as Anti-Corruption, Anti-Trust, False Claims, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, etc.…), the failure of which is only symptomatic of a higher level and overall Program failure.” Although Hanson’s critique of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), corporate monitors and settlement agreements was broader than simply those issues in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement, I found his comments provided some useful insights into how both companies and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might help to make the process more robust in helping companies create a culture of compliance and ethics as result of a resolved enforcement action.

Ethical Tone

Here Hanson says that DPAs do not tie the relationship of compliance and ethics together going forward. He believes that one cannot exist without the other. He thinks many compliance program overseers focus too much on the sub-parts and institute too much of “A piecemeal approach that overly focuses on Program sub-components and neglects ethical tone almost completely is doomed to failure. It is like placing a Band-Aid on an arterial wound.”

While many external monitors will drill down into the detailed specifics of a certain issue or even sub-issue under compliance, such a mechanism can be a useful exercise. For example if there is a particular compliance problem being faced such a detailed approach may be warranted. For instance, if the company got into FCPA trouble for its use of third parties that came into a business relationship with the company through the Supply Chain, an extreme deep dive into the Supply Chain and management of those relationships from the compliance perspective may be important. However what such an approach may cost is losing a greater focus of the overall picture.

Time

A second critique is that many DPAs are simply too short in time length to “effectively implement remediation.” While this criticism is largely for DPAs outside the FCPA context, it bears some discussion. Hanson believes that “A Program is a process, not a one-time event. Moreover, it is a process that perpetuates and improves continuously. Generally speaking, for organizations without a robust and effective Program, it realistically takes at least three years to stand up this process to the point where it is effective and begins annually repeating.” A compliance program design and implementation can take up to 18-months and it can often take another year to assess the implementation results and fine tune the compliance regime going forward.

While most DPAs in the FCPA context are for three years, there have been examples of where either a company was released early from a DPA or a monitorship ended at the 18-month mark rather than the full three years. An example of this is Pride International (now ENSCO) who were rewarded by being released early for its superior enhanced compliance efforts. In the latter category is Weatherford, among others, whose external monitorship can end at 18-months after the execution of the DPA, if sufficient progress is met.

External Monitors

Hanson had some very interesting thoughts about the use of corporate monitors. He has long championed more professionalism for monitors, specifically regarding their training in implementing compliance programs, not simply as very good white-collar defense lawyers or internal investigators. However, in his paper Hanson notes that other concerns have lessened both the effectiveness of external monitors or even their use; when he writes, “Due to past negative publicity arising from problems resulting from poor/immature government agency Monitor selection policies and/or inexperienced and/or ineffective Monitors, government agencies and organizations alike have developed some misperceptions that have led to Monitors being underutilized, even avoided. While some government agencies are still developing or improving Monitor selection policies, many have already adopted policies that addressed past concerns.”

Hanson champions his concerns for monitors with the experience issue. He believes that “many Monitors come from the ranks of whitecollar defense attorneys, who, as noted above, frequently lack the requisite level of compliance and ethics training and knowledge, as well as practical Program experience, to serve in that role most effectively. Additionally, most persons selected to be a Monitor have never been a Monitor before and are unaware of the nuances associated with such a specialized role.” To rectify this issue, Hanson advocates greater monitor training from organizations such as the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) or others. Finally, as Hanson notes, “it is of much greater importance to engage a Monitor who is an expert in compliance and ethics rather than one who is an expert on the substantive underlying criminal and/or regulatory violations.”

As usual when John Hanson writes something relating to the compliance field, you should definitely read it. Hanson’s unique background as a forensic auditor, FBI agent and four-time corporate monitor provide valuable insights to any compliance related issue. His current article is no different. You can use many of his insights directly in your compliance program through engaging an outside expert, called monitor or something else, to help move your compliance and ethics program forward on a number of fronts.

Hanson’s article is available through JDSupra 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a YouTube video clip of Barry McGuire singing Eve of Destruction, click here.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014