King Arthur Week – The Green Knight and the Protection of Whistleblowers – Part IV

We continue our King Arthur themed week with an exploration of one of the most interesting characters in the Arthur canon, The Green Knight, so called because his skin and clothes are green. The meaning of his greenness has puzzled scholars since the discovery of the poem, that identifies him as the Green Man, a vegetation being in medieval art; a recollection of a figure from Celtic mythology; a Christian symbol or the Devil himself. According to Wikipedia, C. S. Lewis suggested the character was “as vivid and concrete as any image in literature” and J. R. R. Tolkien called him the “most difficult character” to interpret in the introduction to his edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. His major role in Arthurian literature includes being a judge and tester of knights, and as such the other characters see him as friendly but terrifying and somewhat mysterious.

In his primary story with Sir Gawain, the Green Knight arrives at Camelot during a Christmas feast, holding a bough of holly in one hand and a battle-axe in the other. Despite disclaim of war, the knight issues a challenge: he will allow one man to strike him once with his axe, under the condition that he return the blow the following year. At first, Arthur takes up the challenge, but Gawain takes his place and decapitates the Green Knight, who retrieves his head and tells Gawain to meet him at the Green Chapel at the stipulated time. One year later, while Gawain is traveling to meet the Green Knight, he stays at the castle of Bercilak de Hautedesert. At Bercilak’s castle, Gawain’s loyalty and chastity is tested, Bercilak sends his wife to seduce Gawain and arranges that they shall exchange their gains for the other’s. On New Year’s Day, Gawain meets the Green Knight and prepares to meet his fate, where upon the Green Knight feints two blows and barely nicks him on the third. He then reveals that he is Bercilak, and that Morgan le Fay had given him the double identity to test Gawain and Arthur.

I thought about this story of testing when I read an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “SEC Gives More Than $600,000 to Whistleblower in Retaliation Case” by Rachel Louise Ensign. She reported on the Paradigm securities matter where an award was made to the whistleblower, which was settled by the firm late last year. The settlement was for $2.2MM and $600, 000 of that amount was paid to the whistleblower for the firm’s retaliation against him. This was the first award to a whistleblower for retaliation from the act of whistleblowing. The award is 30% of $2.2MM, which is the maximum amount a tipster can get under the program. The agency said the “unique hardships” he faced were a factor in the size of his award. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement Director, Andrew Ceresney, was quoted in the article as saying ““We appreciate and recognize the sacrifice this whistleblower made and the important role the whistleblower played in the success of the SEC’s first anti-retaliation enforcement action.””

This award to a whistleblower caps a stunning couple of weeks for whistleblowers who have brought information forward under the Dodd-Frank whistleblowing provisions. First there was the KBR pre-taliation fine and Cease and Desist Order.  In this matter, KBR was fined for having language in its internal employee Confidentiality Agreement (CA) that required employees to go to the company’s legal department before releasing certain confidential information to outside parties such as the SEC. The SEC held that such restrictions violated the “whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act. KBR required witnesses in certain internal investigations interviews to sign confidentiality statements with language warning that they could face discipline and even be fired if they discussed the matters with outside parties without the prior approval of KBR’s legal department. Since these investigations included allegations of possible securities law violations, the SEC found that these terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action to impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.” This was in the face of zero findings that KBR had actually used such language or restrictions to prevent any employees from whistleblowing to the SEC.

In another part if its Press Release regarding the KBR case Director Ceresney said, “By requiring its employees and former employees to sign confidentiality agreements imposing pre-notification requirements before contacting the SEC, KBR potentially discouraged employees from reporting securities violations to us. SEC rules prohibit employers from taking measures through confidentiality, employment, severance, or other type of agreements that may silence potential whistleblowers before they can reach out to the SEC.  We will vigorously enforce this provision.”

Then we have the case of Tony Menendez, who was profiled by Jessie Eisinger in an article entitled “The Whistleblower’s Tale: How An Accountant Took on Halliburton”. The article told the story of a whistleblower, who took his concerns to government regulators and was then outed by the company as the SEC whistleblower and retaliated against. Interestingly, the SEC took no action on the whistleblower claims and the company argued on appeal that “since the SEC hadn’t brought any enforcement action, his complaint about the accounting was unfounded.” The company also claimed that simply because the whistleblower was identified by name, this alone was not the basis for a “material adverse action” against him. While Halliburton won at the administrative hearing level, it lost at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

So now there is a Court of Appeals opinion holding that if whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” only to the retaliation. Further, the employee is not required to prove motive. Well-known whistleblower expert Jordan Thomas also explained in the Eisinger article, “Whistleblowers can be victims of retaliation even if they are ultimately proved wrong as long as they have a “reasonable” belief that the company was doing something wrong.”

It appears that the SEC will be more like the Green Knight going forward. It will be a tester to determine if retaliation against whistleblowers occurs. From preventing companies from trying to stop whistleblowing via CA’s, to monetary awards for retaliation even where there is no SEC or government action taken, to the award to whistleblowers as a part of an SEC settlement for retaliation by their former employers; the SEC is making very clear that they will test how your company treats whistleblowers. If the SEC finds your company’s conduct lacking, you may well be facing something like the Green Knight going forward.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

King Arthur Week – The Round Table and Compliance Professionals and Lawyers as Whistleblowers – Part III

Today we use King Arthur’s Round Table as the entry into our topic. The Round Table is the famous table around which he and his Knights congregated. Its shape implies that everyone who sits there has equal status. Wace, who relied on previous depictions of Arthur’s fabulous retinue, first described the Round Table in 1155. The symbolism of the Round Table developed over time; by the close of the 12th century it had come to represent the chivalric order associated with Arthur’s court, the Knights of the Round Table.

As with all things Arthurian, the origins of the Round Table are a bit murky. One commentator claims Arthur created the Round Table to prevent quarrels among his barons, none of whom would accept a lower place than the others. Others believe it came to prominences as a symbol of the famed order of chivalry that flourished under Arthur. In Robert de Boron’s Merlin, written around the 1190s, the wizard Merlin creates the Round Table in imitation of the table of the Last Supper and of Joseph of Arimathea’s Holy Grail table. This table has twelve seats and one empty place to mark the betrayal of Judas. This seat must remain empty until the coming of the knight of purity and chastity who will achieve the Grail. When the Knight Percival comes to the court at Camelot, he sits in the seat and initiates the Grail quest. Whatever the origins of the Round Table, it may be the single most tangible item associated with King Arthur.

I thought about these concepts surrounding the legend of the Round Table in consideration of the announcement earlier this month of a whistleblower award paid out by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of between $1.4 to $1.6 MM to a compliance officer. Sam Rubenfeld reported in an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “SEC Awards More than $1.4 Million to Whistleblower Compliance Officer”, that the award was paid “to a compliance officer who provided information that helped the SEC in an enforcement action against the tipster’s company, marking the second time a compliance professional received an award under the SEC’s whistleblower program.” As stated this was the second award paid out to a compliance officer, the first occurred in August 2014 and was in the amount of $300,000.

This un-named whistleblower took his (or her) concerns internally to management but was not successful in persuading management to cease the illegal practices. Moreover, “The compliance officer had a reasonable basis to believe disclosure to the SEC “was necessary to prevent imminent misconduct” from causing “substantial financial harm” to the company or investors, the SEC said.” The FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “Compliance officer awarded $1.5 million under SEC whistleblower program”, reported, “After that award, Sean McKessy, chief of the SEC’s whistleblower office, said employees who perform internal audit, compliance, and legal functions can be eligible for an SEC whistleblower award “if their companies fail to take appropriate, timely action on information they first reported internally.”” Adding to McKessy was Andrew Ceresney, chief of the SEC’s enforcement division, who said in a statement “This compliance officer reported misconduct after responsible management at the entity became aware of potentially impending harm to investors and failed to take steps to prevent it.”

This second award makes clear that the SEC will treat compliance professionals as all other whistleblowers when it comes to making an award based upon the fine or penalty. In a December 2014 article, entitled “When Should Internal Auditors And Compliance Officers Become SEC Whistleblowers”, Daniel Hurson wrote “while the amount of the [first] award [$300,000] was not particularly hefty, and was dwarfed by several multi-million dollar whistleblower awards given previously, it carried particular significance to astute observers in the corporate legal, internal audit, and compliance communities. Insiders know that compliance officers and internal auditors, beleaguered and sometimes frustrated as they may be, hold the “keys to the kingdom” when it comes to knowledge of corporate ethical and legal lapses within their companies. Prior to this award, it had generally been thought the SEC would continue to discourage such awards on the rationale that it would not want to encourage employees whose job it was to prevent corporate legal and ethical violations to profit from simply doing their jobs.”

Hurson wrote that this initial whistleblower payment to a compliance practitioner marked a change in SEC policy because “It has generally been understood that compliance officers and internal auditors are not permitted to receive whistleblower awards because information they reported to a superior constituting allegations of misconduct was not to be considered “original information” under the Dodd-Frank Act and SEC rules.” He ended his piece with the following, “In the final analysis, however, the real job of a compliance officer is not just training employees to know the FCPA or any of the myriad of laws and regulations that now govern corporate conduct, but doing his or her absolute best to help them comply with the law, and to identify the cases when they fail. An internal auditor is charged with making his or her investigations and reports, but not administering punishment. But the presumption in each case is that the company will take your work seriously and take action to correct and if necessary report the problem to regulatory authorities.

If this does not happen, or the company displays either a lack of good faith or competence in undertaking its end of the bargain, you may have to undertake corrective action, however unpleasant or personally risky. In truth, you owe this to the company, its vast majority of honest employees, and its investors. If certain people in the corporate structure are blind to the “bet the company” risk in ignoring or covering up wrongdoing, your job is to insure that philosophy does not prevail. I suggest with respect that that duty should remain foremost in the personal decision as to whether and when a compliance officer or internal auditor should, if the situation demands and the law allows, become a whistleblower.”

There was nothing in the SEC Press Release or any of the commentary on the 2015 whistleblower award to indicate that the compliance professional involved was a lawyer. However, an equally delicate issue is whether a lawyer can be a whistleblower. In an article entitled “Is the SEC encouraging unethical whistleblowing by counsel?” Nick Morgan explored this issue. Lawyers are also governed by their state bar associations on their ethical obligations, which include confidentiality and loyalty to a client. Morgan noted, “The Dodd-Frank bounty provisions further exacerbated the conflict between federal securities whistleblower law and state attorney ethics requirements by giving attorneys financial incentives to breach attorney-client confidentiality.”

Three state bar organizations, Washington, California and New York, have questioned if SEC regulations trump state bar ethical obligations regarding attorney whistleblowers. Indeed in New York, “the New York County Lawyers’ Association’s committee on professional ethics responded to the development by releasing a formal opinion. It concluded that New York lawyers, presumptively, may not ethically serve as whistleblowers for a bounty against their clients under Dodd-Frank, because doing so generally gives rise to a conflict between lawyers’ interests and those of their clients.”

What happens when federal law is in conflict with state regulations regarding lawyers’ ethical obligations? Morgan reported, “no court has yet found that SEC regulations preempt state ethics rules governing lawyers’ communications with their clients.  In cases in which conflicts of state and SEC law have appeared, federal courts have been receptive to arguments based on lawyers’ ethical obligations under state law and have balanced the state and federal interests. While the Dodd-Frank bounty provisions increase the incentives for attorneys to act as whistleblowers at their clients’ expense, it is unclear whether those incentives outweigh the risks and burdens associated with taking such actions. Aside from the ethical issues, whistleblowers more often than not go uncompensated and incur significant burdens for their trouble, decreasing whatever temptation some attorneys may feel.”

King Arthur’s Round Table may have been designed so that all Knights were treated as equals. As noted in some of the legends the Round Table is part of the Holy Grail quest storyline, requiring purity of heart and chastity to achieve the Grail. Both strands of the Round Table legend inform the debate on whistleblowers. Even if compliance practitioners may report on their own companies to the SEC, it is not clear about the answer when it comes to lawyers. Further, as lawyers have separate legal obligations they fail to meet the second purpose of the Round Table, to find someone to chase the Grail of whistleblowing.

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, 2015

King Arthur Week – the Pentecostal Oath and Code of Conduct – Part II

One thing for which King Arthur is remembered are his chivalric knights. He helped create this legend, in large part, by establishing a Code of Conduct for the Knights of the Round Table. The King required each one of them to swear an oath, called the Pentecostal Oath, which was Arthur’s ideal for a chivalric knight. The Oath stated, “The king established all his knights, and gave them that were of lands not rich, he gave them lands, and charged them never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason; also, by no mean to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy, upon pain of forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succor upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, ne for no world’s goods. Unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old and young. And every year were they sworn at the high feast of Pentecost.” (Le Morte d’Arthur, pp 115-116)

Interestingly, the Oath first appeared in Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur and in none of the prior incarnations of the legend. In Malory’s telling, after the Knights swore the Oath, they were provided titles and lands by the King. The Oath specifies both positive and negative conduct; that is, what a Knight might do but also what conduct he should not engage in. The Pentecostal Oath formed the basis for the Knight’s conduct at Camelot and beyond. It was clearly a forerunner of today’s corporate Code of Conduct.

The foundational document of any Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program is its Code of Conduct. This requirement has long been memorialized in the US Sentencing Guidelines, which contain seven basic compliance elements that can be tailored to fit the needs and financial realities of any given organization. From these seven compliance elements the Department of Justice (DOJ) has crafted its minimum best practices compliance program, which is now attached to every Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). These requirements were incorporated into the 2012 FCPA Guidance. The US Sentencing Guidelines assume that every effective compliance and ethics program begins with a written standard of conduct; i.e. a Code of Conduct. What should be in this “written standard of conduct”.

Element 1

Standards of Conduct, Policies and Procedures (a Code of Conduct)

An organization should have an established set of compliance standards and procedures. These standards should not be a “paper only” document, but a living document that promotes organizational culture that encourages “ethical conduct” and a commitment to compliance with applicable regulations and laws.

In the FCPA Guidance, the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) state, “A company’s code of conduct is often the foundation upon which an effective compliance program is built. As DOJ has repeatedly noted in its charging documents, the most effective codes are clear, concise, and accessible to all employees and to those conducting business on the company’s behalf.” Indeed, it would be difficult to effectively implement a compliance program if it was not available in the local language so that employees in foreign subsidiaries can access and understand it. When assessing a compliance program the DOJ and SEC will review whether the company chapter has taken steps to make certain that the code of conduct remains current and effective and whether a company has periodically reviewed and updated its code.

In each DPA and NPA over the past 36 months the DOJ has stated the following as item No. 1 for a minimum best practices compliance program.

1. Code of Conduct. A Company should develop and promulgate a clearly articulated and visible corporate policy against violations of the FCPA, including its anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions, and other applicable foreign law counterparts (collectively, the “anti-corruption laws”), which policy shall be memorialized in a written compliance code.

In an article in the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) Complete Compliance and Ethics Manual, 2nd Ed., entitled “Essential Elements of an Effective Ethics and Compliance Program”, authors Debbie Troklus, Greg Warner and Emma Wollschlager Schwartz, state that your company’s Code of Conduct “should demonstrate a complete ethical attitude and your organization’s “system-wide” emphasis on compliance and ethics with all applicable laws and regulations.” Your Code of Conduct must be aimed at all employees and all representatives of the organization, not just those most actively involved in known compliance and ethics issues. From the board of directors to volunteers, the authors believe that “everyone must receive, read, understand, and agree to abide by the standards of the Code of Conduct.” This would also include all “management, vendors, suppliers, and independent contractors, which are frequently overlooked groups.”

There are several purposes identified by the authors that should be communicated in your Code of Conduct. Of course the overriding goal is for all employees to follow what is required of them under the Code of Conduct. You can do this by communicating what is required of them, to provide a process for proper decision-making and then to require that all persons subject to the Code of Conduct put these standards into everyday business practice. Such actions are some of your best evidence that your company “upholds and supports proper compliance conduct.”

The substance of your Code of Conduct should be tailored to the company’s culture, and to its industry and corporate identity. It should provide a mechanism by which employees who are trying to do the right thing in the compliance and business ethics arena can do so. The Code of Conduct can be used as a basis for employee review and evaluation. It should certainly be invoked if there is a violation. To that end, I suggest that your company’s disciplinary procedures be stated in the Code of Conduct. These would include all forms of disciplines, up to and including dismissal, for serious violations of the Code of Conduct. Further, your company’s Code of Conduct should emphasize it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, wherever it does business. The Code needs to be written in plain English and translated into other languages as necessary so that all applicable persons can understand it.

As I often say, the three most important things about your FCPA compliance program are ‘Document, Document and Document’. The same is true of communicating your company’s Code of Conduct. You need to do more than simply put it on your website and tell folks it is there, available and that they should read it. You need to document that all employees, or anyone else that your Code of Conduct is applicable to, has received, read, and understands the Code. For employees, it is important that a representative of the Compliance Department, or other qualified trainer, explains the standards set forth in your Code of Conduct and answers any questions that an employee may have. Your company’s employees need to attest in writing that they have received, read, and understood the Code of Conduct and this attestation must be retained and updated as appropriate.

The DOJ expects each company to begin its compliance program with a very public and very robust Code of Conduct. If your company does not have one, you need to implement one forthwith. If your company has not reviewed or assessed their Code of Conduct for five years, I would suggest that you do in short order as much has changed in the compliance world.

What is the value of having a Code of Conduct? I have heard many business folks ask that question over the years. In its early days, a Code of Conduct tended to be lawyer-written and lawyer-driven to “wave in a defense situation” by claiming that “see we have one”. But is such a legalistic code effective? Is a Code of Conduct more than simply, your company’s law? What is it that makes a Code of Conduct effective? What should be the goal in the creation of your company’s Code of Conduct?

Just as the Pentecostal Oath was required to be sworn out each year, you should have your employees recertify their adherence to your Code of Conduct. Moreover, just as King Arthur set his expectations for behavior your company should do so as well.

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, 2015

King Arthur Week, King Arthur and Leadership – Part I

I have been studying the legend of King Arthur and thought it would be good idea to have a week of blog posts around the legend of King Arthur, the Roundtable and his knights. Today I begin with King Arthur and some leadership lessons that might apply to a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), compliance practitioner or others who might be responsible for an anti-corruption compliance program based on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or similar anti-bribery law.

According to the legends, King Arthur achieved quite a bit in one lifetime. He, established a kingdom, ruled his castle, Camelot and brought peace and order to the land based on law, justice, and morality. He founded an order known as the Knights of the Round Table where in all knights are seated as equals around the table, symbolizing equality, unity, and oneness. Nicole Lastimado, in a blog post entitled “Characteristics of a Good Leader 🙂”, identified five characteristics that she believed made Arthur a good leader.

Adapting Lastimado King Arthur was (1) Honest, in that he displayed sincerity, integrity, and candor in his actions. (2) Intelligent, because he read and studied. (3) Courageous, because he had the perseverance to accomplish a goal, regardless of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles. (4) Imaginative because he adapted by making timely and appropriate changes in his thinking, plans, and methods. Finally, (5) Inspiring, because through demonstrating confidence, he inspired his knights and those in his Kingdom to reach for new heights. I would add as a separate category that Arthur led from the front.

I thought about those qualities when I read a couple of recent articles in the Houston Chronicle. The first was by the Chronicle Business Columnist, L. M. Sixel, entitled “Leaders possess the keys to safety”, and the second was an Op-Ed entitled “Trust Shaken”. Both articles discussed corporate issues that have led to catastrophic injuries or even deaths and more importantly how the entities involved reacted. The first article discussed safety at the workplace and the second health issues in the processing of food products.

In her article Sixel, wrote, “A company truly interesting in making sure its workers are safe has to come up with ways to make it easy and risk-free to bring up potential safety problems.” Moreover, the corporate attitude which fosters this “starts with leadership.” She cited to Frank Reiner, the president of the Chlorine Institute, who recently said in a speech to the group’s annual conference in Houston “You have to eliminate the fear.” Additionally, “Once the cause is identified, similar accidents can be prevented, he said. The message that people are free to come forward to talk about what went wrong and why has to come from the top down. Identifying problems not only is everyone’s responsibility but also a companywide expectation.”

Equally important is for a company to learn from its mistakes. Obviously there should be a root cause analysis after a disaster. At the same conference, the Keynote Speaker, John E. Michel, a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general and author of The Art of Positive Leadership: Becoming a Person Worth Following, said “After a disaster, there is a big investigation to find out why it happened and fix the problem before it can happen again. Sometimes, whole fleets are grounded after an airline crash.” However Michel noted that it is important to keep learning even if there is no disaster. Michel “likes to pay attention to “near misses” and learn from the times things could have gone horribly wrong but didn’t” and that “There are debriefing sessions even when things go well on a flight mission and there are always tweaks to be made.”

Another speaker at the conference Mark Briggs, area director of the Houston South office for OSHA, noted it was important for employees to feel their suggestions and comments around safety are considered by management, saying “You have to show you care and that’s its not just a one-month project.” If management shows that it takes employee recommendations around safety seriously, it will help employees down the chain feel more secure about bringing them to management’s attention.

The Chronicle Op-Ed piece focused on one of the most beloved institutions in the great state of Texas – Blue Bell Ice Cream. Unfortunately for Blue Bell, in March there were five cases of listeria in Kansas, linked to a Blue Bell plant. Three of those persons died, “although a Kansas health official stated that the listeriosis was not the cause of death.” The Chronicle piece noted that after that initial discovery, “multiple strains of listeria have been found in its Brenham and Oklahoma plants, almost 500 miles apart, according to the CDC [Center for Disease Control and Prevention]. Possible explanations include lax safety standards, extremely bad luck striking twice or some undisclosed manufacturing issue.”

A The Texas Tribune article by Terri Langford, entitled “State Health Tests Prodded Blue Bell Recall”, said, “The crisis for Blue Bell began on March 13, when Kansas officials determined that Listeria-tainted portions of the company’s ice cream made it into products served to five hospital patients between January 2014 and January 2015. Of the five who became ill, three died. By March 24, Kansas officials traced the source of the listeria to Blue Bell’s plant in Broken Arrow, Okla., built by the Texas company in 1992. On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control had traced Blue Bell’s Listeria strain to six other patients going back to 2010. Four had been hospitalized in Texas for unrelated problems when they became sick from listeria. Five days later, on April 8, the CDC had identified two clusters of Blue Bell listeria victims. The strains were traced to the plants in Oklahoma and Texas.”

Yet it was not until Blue Bell was notified by a representative from the Texas Department of State Health Services, that “lab tests on two Blue Bell ice cream flavors — Mint Chocolate Chip and Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough — came back “presumptive positive” for the deadly bacteria Listeria monocytogenes” that the company announced it was pulling product from its shelves for testing.

What are the lessons from for the CCO or compliance practitioner? You should channel your inner King Arthur and lead. You have to lead management to understand that one of the best sources of information on your own business is your employees. There is a reason the FCPA Guidance lists internal reporting as one of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. You must give employees a way to report misconduct and then you must use that information to investigate and communicate to employees going forward. If there are lessons to be learned use those lessons for in-house compliance training. If a true catastrophe or disaster befalls the company, do not wait to remediate. Do so as soon as is practicable, not when the government calls.

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, 2015

The Easter Rebellion and Petrobras’ $17 Billion Write Down

On this day, 99 years ago the Easter Rebellion began. If there is one event that is seared into history as a turning point for Irish independence from Britain, it was the Easter Rebellion. England had finally granted Home Rule to Ireland in 1914 but suspended implementation due to World War I. This did not appease the Irish nationals in the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who led the Easter Rebellion. On this day in 1916, on Easter Monday in Dublin, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, led by Patrick Pearse, launched their armed uprising against British rule. Assisted by militant Irish socialists under James Connolly, Pearse and his fellow Republicans rioted and attacked British provincial government headquarters across Dublin and seized the Irish capital’s General Post Office. Following these successes, they proclaimed the independence of Ireland, which had been under the repressive thumb of the United Kingdom for centuries, and by the next morning were in control of much of the city. Later that day, however, British authorities launched a counteroffensive, and by April 29 the uprising had been crushed. After the Rebellion, the English commander decreed the execution of its leaders creating martyrs in Ireland who are honored to this day.

In what may turn out to be a date almost as significant for the Brazilian energy giant Petrobras, yesterday the company announced the results of its audit to determine how much money it lost through the systemic bribery and corruption which is alleged to have pervaded the company. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “Brazil’s Petrobras Reports Nearly $17 Billion in Asset and Corruption Charges”, Paul Kiernan reported that the State-run oil company wrote off “$2.1 billion of alleged bribe payments”. The remaining losses came from “graft and overvalued assets”.

Unfortunately for the company, “Petrobras Chief Executive Aldemir Bendine said in a news conference that additional revisions to the corruption-related write-downs are possible if prosecutors uncover more wrongdoing. But he also said an outside auditor approved Petrobras’s earnings “without any reservations.” That could ease investor concerns about the likelihood of major impairment charges in the future. “We were conservative with this number. We might not reach it, but it was a way to give credibility,” Mr. Bendine said. “We have made our best efforts to turn the page on this sad chapter that the company has passed through.””

Further, and perhaps more ominous for the country as a whole, “The events surrounding Petrobras have slowed both the construction sector and the oil industry, leading to reduced spending, thousands of layoffs and several bankruptcies.” However the article quoted the UK-based economic research group, Oxford Economics, as saying “Petrobras’s need to slash investments could “tip the Brazilian economy into a deeper-than-expected recession.””

Petrobras is the world’s most indebted major energy company. This audited statement was made due to “an April 30 deadline in Petrobras’s bond covenants that could have allowed the holders of billions of dollars of Petrobras debt to demand early repayment, a possibility that prompted Moody’s to yank the company’s investment-grade rating in February. Petrobras has been locked out of capital markets since late 2014 due to repeated delays in its financial statements.”

Petrobras of course claims that it is the victim here. While it cannot claim the tired and tested rogue employee defense, it can draw some support from another source. As reported in another WSJ article, entitled “Brazil’s Alleged Petrobras Corruption Not Widespread, Witness Testifies”, reporters Rogerio Jelmayer and Jeffrey T. Lewis wrote that in testimony before Brazil’s Congress, Augusto Mendonça Neto, president of Setal Engenharia, an engineering company that is a supplier to Petrobras, said that “The alleged corruption scheme at Brazil’s Petroleo Brasileiro SA grew out of an agreement among some of the country’s biggest construction companies to divvy up contracts from the state-owned oil company.”

They reported that “Mr. Mendonça Neto has acknowledged being part of the alleged scheme, and is cooperating with investigators. Mr. Mendonça Neto outlined the history of the conspiracy, saying it started in 1997 when a group of Brazilian construction companies got together informally to try to increase their bargaining power against Petrobras. Mr. Mendonça didn’t name the other companies involved. “The objective of these companies was to have a way to protect themselves, and they arranged things among themselves, so they would each have an opportunity” to win contracts from the oil company, he said. “They competed with the rest of the market. What they wanted was to not compete among themselves, because they were the most important [companies].” The group of companies initially had no control over who was able to bid on Petrobras contracts, but that changed after Petrobras executives joined the scheme in 2003 or 2004, Mr. Mendonça Neto alleged. Once they were on board, the group of suppliers grew to include more companies and together they were able to control which businesses got invited to bid on contracts, he said.”

He went on to testify that “The corruption at Petrobras was limited to three top executives and not spread throughout the company” naming three former Petrobras executives, Paulo Roberto Costa, Renato Duque and Pedro Barusco, as also being involved, and said that the rest of the company isn’t corrupt. “The only contact I had with corruption was with those three people I named, apart from that there was never anything,” Mr. Mendonça Neto told the committee. Petrobras “is a highly competent company, composed of people who are extremely prepared and competent.””

Whether the case is as Mr. Mendonça Neto has alleged, three people trying to extort the entire universe of Petrobras contractors or a broader scheme within the company to shake down those doing business with it or companies paying to play with Petrobras, it hardly matters for investors. Petrobras has already announced that it will not pay dividends for 2015. However that may not be enough for investors, as Keirnan reported, “More broadly, investors say the company needs to improve its governance. The Brazilian government, which is Petrobras’s largest shareholder, now nominates most of the company’s board, including its chairman. Brasília has ordered Petrobras to subsidize fuel prices in recent years while the company was simultaneously executing a massive investment plan, leading it to burn billions of dollars in cash.”

As important as the Easter Rebellion was for Irish independence, it was but one step which led to the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. While this release of information regarding the cost of bribery to Petrobras and its shareholders will be but one in a long number of steps down (hopefully) the path of doing business legally and not corruptly.

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, 2015

Interview with James Koukios

Ed. Note-today I continue my series of interviews with people prominent in the FCPA space. Today is James Koukios, formerly a Manager in the DOJ’s FCPA unit, who recently went into private practice at Morrison & Foerster 

Where did you grow up?

I was born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Where did you go to college, what did you study and how did it influence your career going forward?

I graduated from the University of Michigan in 1996.  Like a lot of people who end up at law school, I was a political science major.  Studying poli sci influenced my career in at least two ways.  First, my interest in the political process is what initially brought me to Washington, as a summer intern in 1995.  That was my first time living outside the state of Michigan, and, although I later went to law school in Boston and spent my law school summers in New York and Chicago, my positive experience that summer eventually led me back to Washington, where I have spent the majority of my legal career.  Second, during my summer internship, at the Atlantic Council of the United States, I was assigned a project researching corruption in Asia.  One of the questions I was asked to address was why corruption in Asia should matter to the United States, and it was in answering that question that I first encountered the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  I found the topic fascinating, but little did I know how important it would eventually become to my career.

What were the highlights of your clerkship with Judge Clement?

During law school, I realized that I wanted to be a trial lawyer.  So, when I started looking for clerkships, I applied only to federal district court judges (Judge Clement was later elevated to the Fifth Circuit, but at the time, she sat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana).  My clerkship did not disappoint.  Among the many trials that I worked on, the highlight was the criminal prosecution of Edwin Edwards, the former four-term governor of Louisiana, and Jim Brown, Louisiana’s then-sitting Insurance Commissioner, for an allegedly corrupt scheme to bail out a failed insurance company.  The trial was full of colorful characters, complex legal issues, and superb lawyering.

Two other highlights were Judge Clement herself and the city of New Orleans.  Judge Clement has been a mentor to me throughout my legal career, and I attribute much of my success not only to what I learned while clerking for her but also to the continuous support she has always given me.  As for New Orleans, what a terrific city.  Food, music, and culture unlike any other in the United States.  It is a special place.

What was your early DOJ career like in Miami and how did you get to Main Justice?

Being an AUSA in Miami was a dream come true for an aspiring trial lawyer.  Miami has one of, if not the, heaviest criminal dockets in the country, and a large portion of those cases go to trial, often very quickly after indictment.  I tried over 15 felony jury cases in my first three years alone and was in court every day.  Early on, I focused on all manner of reactive crimes, violent crimes, and arms trafficking cases.  During my last two years, I started focusing on more complex and time-consuming cases – including a narcotics wiretap case that revealed police corruption and a high-profile defense procurement fraud case, United States v. AEY, Inc., that garnered national attention.

Around the end of 2008, I was thinking of transitioning full time to prosecuting economic crimes, and my wife and I also started talking about moving back to Washington.  Out of the blue, Chuck Duross, who had moved from the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office to the Fraud Section in 2007 (and who would later become Deputy Chief of the FCPA Unit), called to tell me that the Fraud Section was looking to bring in experienced AUSAs to prosecute FCPA cases and asked whether I would be interested.  Needless to say, I was, and about six months later, I was fortunate enough to transfer to the Fraud Section.

What were some of your highlights from your time in the FCPA Unit?

Definitely the Esquenazi and Duperval trials.  Both came at a time when the Fraud Section’s ability to win an FCPA case at trial was being heavily questioned, and, going back to that first conversation I had with Chuck Duross in 2008, I felt I had been brought to the Fraud Section for precisely this reason.  As an added bonus, I was able to return to Miami, where I learned how to be a prosecutor, to try these cases.  I joined the Esquenazi trial team one month before trial (I had been on detail as Special Counsel to FBI Director Robert Mueller for the previous year and came back to Fraud to try the case) and was immediately impressed by the thorough investigation that my colleagues had done—the evidence was truly overwhelming.  Over the next month, we focused on how best to present that evidence, and I was extremely proud of the finished product.  It was also rewarding when the Eleventh Circuit agreed with our position that the Haitian state-owned telecommunications company, Haiti Teleco, was an “instrumentality” of the Haitian government and, therefore, that its officers and employees were “foreign officials” under the FCPA.  Much like our trial victories, the appellate ruling helped validate a crucial aspect of our enforcement program.

Becoming a manager in the FCPA Unit was also a highlight.  In a bit of a surprise, I discovered that I enjoyed supervising cases as much as I enjoyed trying them.  Given my experience, I was able to mentor new prosecutors and help them improve their investigations and cases.  But the learning was not a one-way street.  Several of the attorneys I supervised had recently left large law firms and brought with them insights into corporate governance, internal investigations, data privacy, and a host of other issues that are critically important to the work of the FCPA Unit but do not necessarily come into play in other types of criminal prosecutions.  By combining experienced AUSAs with experienced corporate litigators, we assembled a tremendously talented and well-rounded team in the FCPA Unit, from which we all benefitted.

Finally, becoming more involved in the policy process as a manager was also very rewarding.  Because the Fraud Section has the exclusive mandate for FCPA prosecutions, we were able to formulate—and execute—policy decisions in a manner that, I believe, had a significant impact on corporate compliance programs and the global anti-corruption movement.   

You recently moved over to Morrison & Foerster. In which areas do you intend to focus and what are you looking forward to in private practice?

I am a partner in MoFo’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement and White-Collar Defense practice group.  Generally speaking, I intend to focus on all aspects of that group’s work, from compliance counseling, to internal investigations, to representing corporations and individuals before government regulators and at trial.  Given my extensive FCPA background, much of my work will be focused in the anti-corruption sphere.  In that regard, I am particularly excited about being reunited with two of my former FCPA Unit colleagues and friends, Chuck Duross and Amanda Aikman, at MoFo.  But I also intend to work in other areas in which I have experience, including health care fraud, defense procurement fraud, and export violations, in both the civil and criminal contexts.  And, as someone who still enjoys trial work, I intend to work on any type of trial when there is a need, whether that trial falls within my practice group or another practice area.

Overall, I am looking forward to bringing to bear the experiences and insights I gained during my decade as a federal prosecutor, including my six years as an FCPA prosecutor and supervisor, to help our clients navigate complex issues and to mitigate and avoid problems.  And I’m looking forward to doing all this with my new team.  MoFo has a well-earned reputation for collegiality and for working as one team across all of our offices worldwide to best serve our clients’ needs.  The sense of collegiality and of working together for a common purpose were two of the aspects of government service that I most enjoyed, and I am fortunate to have found a law firm that shares those values.

James Koukios can be reached at JKoukios@mofo.com

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, 2015

Austin City Limits and Asking Questions to Boost Your Compliance Program

Bill Arhos died recently. While his name is not a household word across the country, his progeny certainly is for he was the founder of the longest running live musical show on PBS television Austin City Limits. As was noted in his obituary in the New York Times (NYT) this show “introduced much of America to the sound of redneck rock and progressive country and prompted Austin, Tex., to proclaim itself the “Live Music Capital of the World.”” Indeed one can draw a straight line from Austin City Limits to Sixth Street to SXSW. Arhos began this journey by focusing on one question, “What was the most visible cultural product of Austin?” and to him the answer was Music.

Arhos’ question introduces today’s theme because it is often said that one of the key skills a person needs to be good leader is the skill of listening. However, in a recent article in Fast Company magazine, entitled “The man of many questions”. Brian Grazer and Charles Fishman wrote about a different skill they believe is a critical element to effective leadership. They believe “the right query is the key to success.” The article is a short piece about their upcoming book From a Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life. I found their article to have some interesting insights for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner.

Grazer is a well-known and successful Hollywood producer, involved with such movies as Splash, A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man. He believes that much of the success he has achieved is because he asks lots of questions. Indeed the authors write, “Questions are a great management tool.” This is because “Asking questions elicits information” and it also “creates the space for people to raise issues they are worried about that a boss, or colleagues, may not know about.” Further, by asking questions, you allow “people to tell a different story than the one you’re expecting.” Finally, and perhaps most significantly, they said, “Most important from my perspective, asking questions means people have to make their case for the way they want a decision to go.”

Getting your employees to not simply talk to you but tell you the truth about how they feel or what they may be thinking is a key skill for any leader. As a CCO, you may find this particularly difficult in far-flung reaches of an international company, which is subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or other anti-bribery/anti-corruption law. Whether you are performing a risk assessment or simply getting out of the corporate home office, you need to be able to engage employees across the globe and from a variety of cultures.

The authors suggest asking open-ended questions so you will not simply get a Yes/No answer. While the questions they discussed using related to Grazer’s work in the movie business, I found them a good starting point for any CCO or compliance practitioner, “What are you focused on? Why are you focused on that? What are you worried about? What is your plan?” By asking these or other questions, such as “What are you hoping for? What are you expecting? What’s the most important part of this for you?” as a leader, you can get much more engagement from the people with whom you work.

Say you are pursuing a high profit deal in a high-risk geographic area. You might want to sit down with the business unit person in charge of the project and ask him/her, what is your plan to sign this contract and execute it, consistent with your obligations within the company’s FCPA compliance program? As the authors’ note, “You’re doing two things just by asking the questions: You’re making it clear that she should have a plan, and you’re making it clear that she is in charge of that plan. The question itself implies both the responsibility for the problem and the authority to come up with the solution.” This type of approach allows those who so desire to step up, as “It’s a simple quality of human nature that people prefer to choose to do things rather than be ordered to do them.”

Equally important are the values you can transmit by asking questions. If you do have to fly to China or some other local office, you do not want to be seen as the US corporate executive coming to deliver some bad news or that costs need to be cut. By asking questions you can solicit ideas to help solve problems. The authors state, “Questions create both the authority in people to come up with ideas and take action and the responsibility for moving things forward. Questions create space for all kinds of ideas and the sparks to come up with those ideas. Most important, questions send a very clear message: We’re willing to listen, even to ideas or suggestions or problems we weren’t expecting.” The authors dispel the notion this is some Hollywood ‘touchy-feely’ management style by stating “This isn’t about being “warm’ or “friendly”.” Further showing curiosity by asking questions is not simply a “matter of style.”

Near the end of their articles the authors make clear that the need to ask questions goes both up and down. They state, “As valuable as questions are when you’re the boss, I think they are just as important in every other direction in the workplace. People should ask their bosses questions. I appreciate it when people ask me the same kind of open-ended questions that I so often ask.” If employees feel comfortable enough to ask these questions, it can “allow a boss to be clear about things that the boss might think are clear, but which often aren’t clear at all.” They also rather interestingly observed that if a person asks a question, “then they almost always listen to the answer. People are more likely to consider a piece of advice, or a flat-out instruction, if they’ve asked for it in the first place.”

Just as Arhos’ question asked over 40 years ago led to a cultural phenomenon; you too can use Grazer’s techniques to improve not only your leadership qualities in the compliance function but your organization’s compliance function as well. The reason that asking questions is so much better than simply giving orders is that you have a vast talented workforce you can tap into to help you do business in compliance. But the how of doing a business process that is, or should be, burned into your company can be facilitated by possibilities that are out there in your employees’ minds. To get at them you have to ask questions. The authors end their Fast Times article with the following two lines which sums up what you need to create as a leader, “But nobody is afraid to ask a question. Nobody is afraid to answer a question.”

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, 2015

The Petrobras Scandal and Corruption of Political Parties Under the FCPA

When does bribery and corruption move from a business issue to a political issue to a national issue? Why should US companies be held to the gold standard of anti-corruption laws? Should the US government even care if US companies engage in bribery of politicians and political parties outside the US? I pose these questions as we see some of these issues now being played out in real time in Brazil.

Earlier this month, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article by Rogerio Jelmayer and Jeffrey T. Lewis, entitled “Brazil Graft Probe Reaches Higher Up” said that “A widening investigation into alleged corruption at Brazil’s state-controlled oil company edged closer to President Dilma Rousseff on Wednesday when police arrested her ruling political party’s treasurer. The official, João Vaccari Neto, was charged with receiving “irregular donations” for the Workers’ Party from some suppliers to the oil company” [Petrobras]. Moreover, one cooperating witness, Pedro Barusco, “told a congressional hearing in March that he amassed nearly $100 million in bribes as a part of the alleged bribery schemes and the Workers’ Party may have received twice as much.”

But the corruption scandal appears to be much broader than simply one politician. Another WSJ article, by reporters Paulo Trevisani and Paul Kiernan, entitled “Brazil Attorney General Seeks Corruption Probe Approval”, said that the Brazilian Attorney General “has asked the Supreme Court for permission to proceed with investigations against an undisclosed number of politicians”. He asked for “28 probes involving 54 persons”. Interestingly, this part of the Brazilian corruption probe is separate and apart from the “team of prosecutors who have been working on the case from the southern Brazilian city of Curitba”. The reason is that under Brazilian law “special treatment is afforded to high-ranking authorities, whose cases my be heard by the Supreme Court.” This anomaly required “any evidence pointing to government officials or lawmakers had to be sent to” the Brazilian Attorney General.

As the corruption scandal continues to morph, allegations have reached the level of last year’s Brazilian Presidential election. Mary Anastasia O’Grady, also writing in the WSJ, in an article entitled “An Escalating Corruption Scandal Rocks Brazil”, said that interviewed defeated Presidential candidate Aécio Neves, head of the Social Democracy Party of Brazil, told her that he lost the election because of “organized crime”. This was not some dark mafia plot but came about from “alleged skimming operations at the government-owned oil company.” She went on to note, “Prosecutors allege that Petrobras contractors were permitted to pad their contracts and remit the excess as kickbacks to the oil company, which passed hundreds of millions of dollars to politician and, more importantly the PT.” The PT is the ruling party currently led by Brazilian President Rousseff.

It has not yet been reported that any US companies are under investigation by the Brazilian Attorney General for the bribing of politicians or a political party such as the President’s Workers’ Party. However, for any US companies that have been engaged in trying to influence elections in Brazil through campaign contributions, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) specifically incorporates politicians, political parties and candidates for political offices as foreign government officials for purposes of the Act. In the 2012 FCPA Guidance it states, “The FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions apply to corrupt payments made to (1) “any foreign official”; (2) “any foreign political party or official thereof ”; (3) “any candidate for foreign political office”; or (4) any person, while knowing that all or a portion of the payment will be offered, given, or promised to an individual falling within one of these three categories. Although the statute distinguishes between a “foreign official,” “foreign political party or official thereof,” and “candidate for foreign political office,” the term “foreign official” in this guide generally refers to an individual falling within any of these three categories.”

Additionally, politicians and political parties are incorporated into the FCPA through the accounting provisions of the FCPA. As further stated in the FCPA Guidance, “Additionally, individuals and entities can be held directly civilly liable for falsifying an issuer’s books and records or for circumventing internal controls. Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1 provides: “No person shall, directly or indirectly, falsify or cause to be falsified, any book, record or account subject to [the books and records provision] of the Securities Exchange Act.” And Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5)) provides that “[n]o person shall knowingly circumvent or knowingly fail to implement a system of internal accounting controls or knowingly falsify any book, record, or account ….”. The Exchange Act defines “person” to include a “natural person, company, government, or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government.”

The most well known FCPA enforcement action involving bribes paid to politicians was the Halliburton/KBR enforcement action. For those of you who may have forgotten this case, which has the third highest FCPA fine of all-time, Halliburton subsidiary KBR admitted that a consortium which it led paid Nigerian officials at least $132 million in bribes for engineering, procurement and construction contracts awarded between 1995 and 2004 to build liquefied natural gas facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria. The consortium was named TSKJ and consisted of subsidiaries of the following entities: KBR; Technip, a French company; ENI, an Italian company; and JGC, a Japanese company. There was also a corrupt agent involved in paying the bribes, Jeffrey Tesler and another Japanese company Marubeni Corporation.

BONNEY ISLAND SETTLEMENT BOX SCORE

Entity	Fine, Penalty and Disgorgement of Profits (in $ millions)
Halliburton (KBR)	$579
ENI	$365
Technip	$338
JGC	$218
Marubeni Corp	$50
Jeffery Tesler (the Bag Man)	$149
Total	$1,699

 

So for those of you keeping score at home, there has been, and could be fines, penalties and profit disgorgement of over $1.699 billion. This figure does not include the amount paid out by these corporations for attorneys’ fees, forensic costs and other professional fees, which can be only speculated about.

 The Petrobras scandal continues to morph and to grow way beyond the bounds of simple commercial bribery. One of the goals in the passage of the Act was to prevent US companies from illegally influencing foreign officials and foreign elections through the payments of bribes. The Petrobras scandal may well demonstrate to the world community how important it is to remember that now is certainly not the time to try and weaken either the FCPA or its enforcement going forward. If there is ever to be a truly level playing field in commerce across the globe, it will be by enforcement of anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA that makes it safe for US businesses to compete on the global stage and compete on the basis of quality, not bribe paid.

But the morphing of the Petrobras bribery scandal into the Brazilian political scene may also demonstrate how commercial bribery can work to corrupt a democratic political system. If the money paid from bribes for commercial contracts worked its way into the Brazilian election, this would be perversion of the democratic process. It is this commercial issue that demonstrates why businesses, particularly US businesses, have a role in the international fight against bribery and corruption. It also seems to me to be a straight line from commercial bribery to political corruption to the explosion of terrorism against such corruption. While the FCPA may not have been passed with this connection to terrorism in mind, it is certainly an important US government tool in that fight as well.

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, 2015

The Intersection of the FCPA, TI-CPI and Tax Appeals in Brazil

The Transparency International-Corruptions Perceptions Index (TI-CPI) is released each year in November. The TI-CPI rates Brazil as 69^th out of 175 countries on its index, coming in with a score of 43 out of 100. I wonder if TI might consider an interim report this year on Brazil? As things keep going, more and more corruption is alleged to be a part of the everyday fabric of the country. While the Petrobras and related scandals have been well chronicled, the overall stench of corruption just keeps spreading and spreading.

Recently it was announced yet another set of investigations around corruption has begun. This time it involves the Brazilian Finance Ministry’s Administrative Council for Tax Appeal. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “Brazil Probes New Bribery Allegations”, Paulo Trevisani reported that this is an “arbitration board that hears appeals from taxpayers who dispute how much they owe the [Brazilian] government.” The investigation would appear to be widespread as “Prosecutors said 74 companies and 24 individuals are under investigation.”

Interestingly not only is the Finance Ministry investigating the allegations but also the Brazilian internal revenue service, the Brazilian federal police and the Brazilian federal prosecutors office. In what would seem to indicate the inherent conflict of interest in the Finance Ministry investigating itself, Trevisani reported the “Finance Ministry said the alleged scheme wasn’t systematic but rather, involved “isolated acts” carried out by a small group of government tax officials. When prosecutors announced the investigation on March 26 they said that losses to the nation’s treasury totaled $6.1 billion over 15 years.” Oops.

While the entities and individuals under investigation have not been named, “a leading investigator on the case said companies under investigation include Ford Motor Brazil, a unit of Ford Motor Co.; JBS, the world’s largest meatpacker, the Brazilian unit of the Spanish bank Banco Santander SA; and Brazil’s second largest private-sector bank, Bradesco SA.” You may recall from an earlier blog post I noted that Brazil’s third largest state-owned bank Caixa Econômica Federal (Caixa) is also under investigation for corruption.

However, this new corruption scandal is the first time that non-Brazilian companies have come under investigation outside of the Petrobras scandal. The WSJ article noted, “Brazil’s tax system is among the most onerous and complex in the world. Penalties can be steep. That has fostered an environment where corruption can flourish, [un-named] experts say. “Taxes in Brazil are so high and complicated that it is easy for companies to get in trouble with the taxman,” the leading investigator told The Wall Street Journal. The investigator said frequent tax disputes created opportunities for ill-intentioned public servants to profit by helping firms circumvent red tape. Prosecutors say the probe began in 2013 after they received an anonymous letter describing details of the alleged scheme.”

An article in forbes.com, entitled “Ford On List Of Companies Suspected Of Brazilian Tax Fraud” by Kenneth Rapoza, went further than the WSJ article when it laid out the list of “companies are under investigation for taking part in various tax bribery schemes” and then listed the amounts they allegedly avoided paying. The Top Ten list is:

• Santander: R$3.3 billion
• Bradesco: R$2.7 billion
• Ford: R$1.7 billion
• Gerdau: R$1.2 billion
• Light: R$929 million
• Banco Safra: R$767 million
• RBS: R$672 million
• Camargo Correa: R$668 million
• Mitsubishi: R$505 million
• Banco Industrial: R$436 million

An article in businessinsider.com, entitled “Brazil uncovers multibillion-dollar tax fraud”, reported that this investigation, dubbed Operation Zeal, had uncovered that “the [tax] body managed to obtain tax appeals board rulings in the companies’ favor by either cutting penalties or waiving them altogether. In return, officials allegedly received bribes from some 70 companies believed to have benefited from the scheme. A written statement issued by Brazilian federal police stated “The investigations, begun in 2013, showed the organization acted within the body sponsoring private interests, seeking to influence and corrupt advisors with a view either to securing the cancellation or reduction of penalties from tax authorities”. Moreover, “Police said the scam could have netted the companies as much as 19 billion reais ($5.9 billion) but evidence uncovered so far amounts to around a third of that amount.” Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the article said, “Federal police organized crime chief Oslain Campos Santan said the total sums could end up being “as much” as that involved in the Petrobras scam”.

This new Brazilian corruption scandal recalls the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action against the Houston-based Parker Drilling Company. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release issued at the time of the announcement of the conclusion of the matter, the company was issued a tax assessment on its drilling rigs. The Press Release went on to state, “According to court documents, rather than pay the assessed fine, Parker Drilling contracted indirectly with an intermediary agent to resolve its customs issues. From January to May 2004, Parker Drilling transferred $1.25 million to the agent, who reported spending a portion of the money on various things including entertaining government officials. Emails in which the agent requested additional money from Parker Drilling referenced the agent’s interactions with Nigeria’s Ministry of Finance, State Security Service, and a delegation from the president’s office. Two senior executives within Parker Drilling at the time reviewed and approved the agent’s invoices, knowing that the invoices arbitrarily attributed portions of the money that Parker Drilling transferred to the agent to various fees and expenses. The agent succeeded in reducing Parker Drilling’s TI Panel fines from $3.8 million to just $750,000.”

So with all of the above that has been written about in the past few weeks, where do you think Brazil should be on the TI-CPI? While its rating of 43 out of 100 may not seem too low or perhaps more accurately too much perceived corruption, it may be time for a mid-year reassessment. Certainly if you are a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner you may wish to perform your own reassessment. If you have any dealings with the Brazilian Finance Ministry’s Administrative Council for Tax Appeal, you need to perform an internal investigation starting today on all information you can find about the process and results. For if the results were extremely favorable the reason for the achievement may have violated both Brazilian law and the FCPA.

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, 2015

The Passing of Günter Grass and Compliance Week 2015 Is Near

Günter Grass died this week. The contradictions that made up post-war Germany were wrapped up in him as well as any other single person I know anything about. He was a Nobel Prize winner for literature, who, it was revealed late in his life, had been a member of the Waffen-SS during World War II. He was an anti-militarist, anti-nationalist and against German reunification, yet a big fan of Castro’s Cuba. Contractions indeed. Like most Americans, I was introduced to Grass through his seminal work The Tin Drum. It was as haunting a work as I had read up to that point in my life and one I can still remember reading to this day.

In the area of conference excellence around all things compliance, there is the upcoming Compliance Week 2015. While the conference has not had as many appearances as Gehrig’s long streak, this is the 10^th annual event. As usual, Matt Kelly and his team over at Compliance Week have put together a star-studded and first-rate program for a wide variety of compliance practitioners. From the US government there is Margaret McGuire, Vice Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Financial Reporting and Task Force, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell. For export controls there will be representatives from the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring you the latest on export control enforcement issues. Finally, both Laura Perkins from the DOJ and Kara Brockmeyer from the SEC will be there to discuss Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement from the perspectives of their agencies.

As usual there will be many sessions aimed at the compliance practitioner. Are you interested in developing a strong corporate culture? If so there will be sessions to discuss how to do so from working with your management to have the right culture to building ethics and compliance programs that amplify those values rather than undermine them. Another often-discussed topic is compliance leadership. There are several sessions focusing on this topics as well as moving compliance officers into the new era of corporate compliance, CCO 2.0.

If there are specific geographic areas that you are concerned about there will be conversations about Russia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, China and Latin America. In these sessions, held in smaller groups to facilitate conversations and questions, there will be discussions that focus on ethics and compliance risks in geographic hotspots around the world. Wondering which regulators matter most in a specific area? What training tactics work best for local workforces? Which cultural differences can cause the biggest risks or mis-steps? All those questions and more are prime fodder for these sessions.

Cyber security is becoming more prominent. In addition to the sessions where government speakers will talk from their perspectives, there will also be sessions aimed at the corporate response. Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) reporting and money laundering issues will be discussed. Finally, although it may not seem intuitive for compliance professionals but I would urge you to attend the session on the new revenue recognition standards. Even I could understand the prior standards and lawyers and compliance professionals need to have handle on what the business folks need to do to have their sales properly recognized in books and records.

There will be several sessions dealing with training. An interesting one is entitled “Game On: 4^th Generation Ethics and Compliance Education” and will provide you with information on best practices and how to align roles, risks, training priorities strategically and to make the most efficient use of limited training time while protecting the organization. The discussion will be framed around statistics that you can use to drive training decisions and true program effectiveness. Another interesting angle will be through the prism of social media in a session which will consider the new risks social media brings, and the best ways to square its advances in communications and IT with your existing compliance program, whether that’s through new policies, new technology, or a mix of both.

There will be several of sessions dealing with investigations. One I am looking forward to attending is entitled “Compliance Officer’s Role in Investigations and Discipline”, where we will focus on how you can run an effective investigation in some of the most difficult spots in the world, where local law may conflict with what you need to do. The distinguished panel will explore local stumbling blocks to your investigation, and offer ideas on how to complete the job nonetheless. In the era of ­pre-taliation claims by the SEC, discipline is becoming a trickier subject for Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs).

The FCPA is always at the forefront of this conference and this year’s event is no different. You can learn from Leslie Caldwell about overall enforcement trends and from other government representatives on some of the issues specific to their agencies and departments. Lastly, I will be leading a conversation on the FCPA enforcement trends we have seen in 2015 to date.

As usual, Matt Kelly and his team have put together a fantastic event. But the greatest value might be for you to mingle and meet with some of the top compliance practitioners and thought leaders in the country over three days in May. There will be plenty of time for socializing and meeting in the spacious breakfast area, on refreshment breaks or in the always-great Tuesday evening cocktail party.

I have been authorized to offer readers of this blog, who register for Compliance Week, a discount off of the standard rate. To register, please use this link and enter discount code CW15_FCPAFOX (case sensitive) to receive the special pricing. You can read more on the event by going to the following website: http://conference.complianceweek.com.

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, 2015