FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

August 27, 2014

Risk Assessments-the Cornerstone of Your Compliance Program, Part II

7K0A0501Ed. Note-Today, I continue my three-part posts on risk assessments. Today I take a look at some different ideas on how you might go about assessing your risks.

One of the questions that I hear most often is how does one actually perform a risk assessment? Mike Volkov has suggested a couple of different approaches in his article “Practical Suggestions for Conducting Risk Assessments.” In it Volkov differentiates between smaller companies which might use some basic tools such as “personal or telephone interviews of key employees; surveys and questionnaires of employees; and review of historical compliance information such as due diligence files for third parties and mergers and acquisitions, as well as internal audits of key offices” from larger companies. Such larger companies may use these basic techniques but may also include a deeper dive into high risk countries or high risk business areas. If your company’s sales model uses third party representatives, you may also wish to visit with those parties or persons to help evaluate their risks for bribery and corruption that might well be attributed to your company.

Another noted compliance practitioner, William Athanas, in an article entitled “Rethinking FCPA Compliance Strategies in a New Era of Enforcement”, took a different look at risk assessments when he posited that companies assume that FCPA violations follow a “bell-curve distribution, where the majority of employees are responsible for the majority of violations.” However Athanas believed that the distribution pattern more closely follows a “hockey-stick distribution, where a select few…commit virtually all violations.” Athanas suggests assessing those individuals with the opportunity to interact with foreign officials have the greatest chance to commit FCPA violations. Diving down from that group, certain individuals also possess the necessary inclination, whether a personal financial incentive linked to the transaction or the inability to recognize the significant risks attendant to bribery.

To assess these risks, Athanas suggested an initial determination of the touch-points where the operations of manufacturing companies “intersect with foreign officials vested with discretionary authority.” This will lead to an understanding of the individuals who hold these roles within a company. This means that a simple geographic analysis is but a first step in a risk analysis. Thereafter companies should also focus on “those who authorize and record disbursements, as well as those who represent the company in situations where they may be solicited for payments.” The next step is to determine those company employees who may have the incentive “to pay bribes on the Company’s behalf.” This incentive can come from a variety of forms; such as a company compensation plan, which rewards high producers; employees who do not understand the risk they place the company (and themselves) in by engaging in tactics which violate the FCPA; and, finally, those employees who seek to place their individual interests above those of the company.

Athanas concludes by noting that this limited group of employees, or what he terms the “shaft of the hockey-stick”, is where a company should devote the majority of its compliance resources. With a proper risk assessment, a company can then focus its compliance efforts on “intensive training sessions or focused analysis of key financial transactions — on those individuals with the opportunity and potential inclination to violate the statute.” This focus will provide companies the greatest “financial value and practical worth of compliance efforts.”

Lawler suggests that you combine the scores or analysis you obtain from the corruption markers you review; whether it is the DOJ list or those markers under the UK Bribery Act. From there, create a “rudimentary risk-scoring system that ranks the things to review using risk indicators of potential bribery.” This ensures that high-risk exposures are done first and/or given more time. As with all populations of this type, there is likely to be a normal or ‘bell curve’ distribution of risks around the mean. So 10-15% of exposure falls into the relative low-risk category; the vast majority (70-80%) into the moderate-risk category; and the final 10-15% would be high risk.

Earlier this week I wrote a piece about the Desktop Risk Assessment. I will not repeat the entire blog post here but only use some of the areas you could assess as a starting point for discussion. If you do not have the time, resources or support to conduct a worldwide risk assessment annually, you can take a different approach. You might try assessing other areas annually through a more limited focused risk assessment, which a colleague of mine calls the Desktop Risk Assessment. Some of the areas that such a Desktop Risk Assessment could inquire into might be the following:

  • Are resources adequate to sustain a culture of compliance?
  • How are the risks in the C-Suite and the Boardroom being addressed?
  • What are the FCPA risks related to the supply chain?
  • How is risk being examined and due diligence performed at the vendor/agent level? How is such risk being managed?
  • Is the documentation adequate to support the program for regulatory purposes?
  • Is culture, attitude (tone from the top), and knowledge measured? If yes, can we use the information enhance the program?
  • Disciplinary guidelines – Do they exist and has anyone been terminated or disciplined for a violating policy?
  • Communication of information and findings – Are escalation protocols appropriate?
  • What are the opportunities to improve compliance?

There are a variety of materials that you can review from or at a company that can facilitate such a Desktop Risk Assessment. You can review your company’s policies and written guidelines by reviewing anti-corruption compliance policies, guidelines, and procedures to ensure that compliance programs are tailored to address specific risks such as gifts, hospitality and entertainment, travel, political and charitable donations, and promotional activities.

This list is not intended to be a complete list of items, you can pick and choose to form some type of Desktop Risk Assessment but hopefully you can see some of the things areas you can assess and deliver any remedial action which may be warranted. Further, if you aim to perform an annual Desktop Risk Assessment with a full worldwide risk assessment every two years or so, you should be in a good position to keep abreast of compliance issues that may change and need more or greater risk management. And do not forget the that the FCPA Guidance ends its section on risk with, “When assessing a company’s compliance program, DOJ and SEC take into account whether and to what degree a company analyzes and addresses the particular risks it faces.”

A completely different approach was articulated by Leonard Shen, Vice President (VP) and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) at PayPal, in a presentation to Compliance Week. His approach is not the right approach for every company but for those initiating their compliance journey, or a company considering a significant upgrade due to some systemic issue; this approach may be a more effective approach than the traditional risk assessment where a team of lawyers, CPAs and internal auditors assess a company’s compliance environment.

In a company which is initiating its compliance program, it can be perceived as a sea change of culture. However, Shen indicated that he had used an approach which worked to alleviate those types of concerns which also provided enough information to perform a robust assessment which could be used to form the basis of an effective compliance program. He termed this type of approach as one to “engage and educate.” While the approach had a two word name, it actually had three purposes; (1) to engage the employees in what would form the basis for an enhanced compliance program; (2) to educate the employees generally in compliance and ethical behavior; and (3) through the engagement of employees, to gather information which could be used to form the basis of a risk assessment.

Shen and his compliance team traveled to multiple company locations, across the globe, to meet with as many employees as possible. A large number these meetings were town hall settings, and key employee leaders, key stakeholders and employees identified as high risk, due to interaction with foreign governmental official touch-points, were met with individually or in smaller groups. Shen and his team listened to their compliance concerns and more importantly took their compliance ideas back to the home office.

From this engagement, the team received several thousand-employee suggestions regarding enhancements to the company’s compliance program. After returning to the US, Shen and his team winnowed down this large number to a more manageable number, somewhere in the range of a couple of hundred. These formed the basis of a large core of the enhancements to the existing company compliance program. After the enhanced compliance program was rolled out formal training began. During the training, the team was able to give specific examples of how employee input led to the changes in the enhanced program. This engaged the employees and made them feel like they were a part of, and had a vested interest in, the company’s compliance program. This employee engagement led to employee buy-in.

During the town hall meetings, and the smaller more informal group meetings, Shen and his team were doing more than simply listening, they were also training. However, the training was not on specific compliance provisions; it was more generally on overall ethics and how the employees could use compliance as a business tool. Most ethical standards of a company are not found in an existing compliance program, they are found in the general anti-discrimination guidelines and ethical business practices such anti-competitiveness and use of customer confidential information prohibitions. Often these general concepts can be found in a company’s overall Code of Conduct or similar statement of business ethics; workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment guidelines can be found in Human Resource policies and procedures.

Concepts such as anti-competitiveness and use of customer and competitor’s illegally obtained confidential information may be found in anti-trust or other business practice focused guidelines.

Shen and his team’s aim on the education component of “engage and educate” was to have the company employee’s start thinking about doing business the ethical way. It was ethical concept based training designed to be in contrast to a rules based approach, where employees believe they are taught the rules, and then try to see how close they can get to the line of violating the compliance rule without actually stepping over the line. Moreover, by having this general ethical business training, it laid the groundwork for the enhancement of the company’s compliance program and the training that would occur when the enhancement was rolled out.

A third key component of the “engage and educate” program is the risk assessment component. Shen’s approach here was not the traditional control-testing model, where documents are pulled and tested against a standard. Shen and his team listened, listened and listened. They listened to their employees concerns and they listened to the compliance issues they raised. As they were listening they began to ask questions about what was done and why. The questioning was not in an adversarial, interrogation mode but ferreting out the employees concerns while having the employees educate the team on the actual procedures that were used in several areas identified as key high risk areas.

Shen emphasized that this was an assessment and not an audit so no detailed forensic work was needed or used. However, by listening, and gently questioning, Shen and his team were able to garner enough information to create a risk assessment profile which informed and became the basis of their compliance program enhancement. Shen and his team did not identify to the company employees that they were engaged in a formal risk assessment. He believed that in many ways, he and his team were able to garner more useful information with which to inform their compliance program enhancement.

Shen’s “engage and educate” approach worked for his company at that point in time. It may not work for other companies as a traditional risk assessment but it does provide a different model if your company is beginning to create their compliance program, or is looking into a major enhancement.

Tomorrow, I will look at how you might use a risk assessment 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, 2014


August 26, 2014

Risk Assessments-the Cornerstone of Your Compliance Program, Part I

7K0A0079Yesterday, I blogged about the Desktop Risk Assessment. I received so many comments and views about the post, I was inspired to put together a longer post on the topic of risk assessments more generally. Of course I got carried away so today, I will begin a three-part series on risk assessments. In today’s post I will review the legal and conceptual underpinnings of a risk assessment. Over the next couple of days, I will review the techniques you can use to perform a risk assessment and end with a discussion of what to do with the information that you have gleaned in a risk assessment for your compliance program going forward.

One cannot really say enough about risk assessments in the context of anti-corruption programs. Since at least 1999, in the Metcalf & Eddy enforcement action, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has said that risk assessments that measure the likelihood and severity of possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations identifies how you should direct your resources to manage these risks. The FCPA Guidance stated it succinctly when it said, “Assessment of risk is fundamental to developing a strong compliance program, and is another factor DOJ and SEC evaluate when assessing a company’s compliance program.” The UK Bribery Act has a similar view. In Principal I of the Six Principals of an Adequate Compliance program, it states, “The commercial organisation regularly and comprehensively assesses the nature and extent of the risks relating to bribery to which it is exposed.” In other words, risk assessments have been around and even mandated for a long time and their use has not lessened in importance. The British have a way with words, even when discussing compliance, and Principal I of the Six Principals of an Adequate Compliance program says that your risk assessment should inform your compliance program.

Jonathan Marks, a partner in the firm of Crowe Horwath LLP, said the following about risk assessments in his 13-step FCPA Compliance Action Plan, “A comprehensive assessment of the potential bribery and corruption risks – both existing and emerging risks – associated with a company’s products and services, customers, third-party business partners, and geographic locations can serve as the basis for the compliance program. The risk assessment determines the areas at greatest risk for FCPA violations among all types of international business transactions and operations, the business culture of each country in which these activities occur, and the integrity and reputation of third parties engaged on behalf of the company.”

The simple reason is straightforward; one cannot define, plan for, or design an effective compliance program to prevent bribery and corruption unless you can measure the risks you face. Both the both the US Sentencing Guidelines, the UK Bribery Act’s Consultative Guidance list Risk Assessment as the initial step in creating an effective anti-corruption and anti-bribery program.

What Should You Assess?

In 2011, the DOJ concluded three FCPA enforcement actions which specified factors which a company should review when making a Risk Assessment. The three enforcement actions, involving the companies Alcatel-Lucent SA, Maxwell Technologies Inc. and Tyson Foods Inc. all had common areas that the DOJ indicated were FCPA compliance risk areas which should be evaluated for a minimum best practices FCPA compliance program. Both the Alcatel-Lucent and Maxwell Technologies Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) listed the seven following areas of risk to be assessed.

  1. Geography-where does your Company do business.
  2. Interaction with types and levels of Governments.
  3. Industrial Sector of Operations.
  4. Involvement with Joint Ventures.
  5. Licenses and Permits in Operations.
  6. Degree of Government Oversight.
  7. Volume and Importance of Goods and Personnel Going Through Customs and Immigration.

All of these factors were reiterated in the FCPA Guidance which stated, “Factors to consider, for instance, include risks presented by: the country and industry sector, the business opportunity, potential business partners, level of involvement with governments, amount of government regulation and oversight, and exposure to customs and immigration in conducting business affairs.”

These factors provide guidance into some of the key areas that the DOJ apparently believes can put a company at higher FCPA risk. These factors supplement those listed in the UK Bribery Consultative Guidance states, “Risk Assessment – The commercial organization regularly and comprehensively assesses the nature and extent of the risks relating to bribery to which it is exposed.” The Guidance points towards several key risks which should be evaluated in this process. These risk areas include:

  1. Internal Risk – this could include deficiencies in
  • employee knowledge of a company’s business profile and understanding of associated bribery and corruption risks;
  • employee training or skills sets; and
  • the company’s compensation structure or lack of clarity in the policy on gifts, entertaining and travel expenses.
  1. Country risk – this type of risk could include:

(a) perceived high levels of corruption as highlighted by corruption league tables published by reputable Non-Governmental Organizations such as Transparency International;

(b) factors such as absence of anti-bribery legislation and implementation and a perceived lack of capacity of the government, media, local business community and civil society to effectively promote transparent procurement and investment policies; and

(c) a culture which does not punish those who seeks bribes or make other extortion attempts.

  1. Transaction Risk – this could entail items such as transactions involving charitable or political contributions, the obtaining of licenses and permits, public procurement, high value or projects with many contractors or involvement of intermediaries or agents.
  2. Partnership risks – this risk could include those involving foreign business partners located in higher-risk jurisdictions, associations with prominent public office holders, insufficient knowledge or transparency of third party processes and controls.

Another approach was detailed by David Lawler, in his book “Frequently Asked Questions in Anti-Bribery and Corruption”. He broke the risk areas to evaluate down into the following categories: (1) Company Risk, (2) Country Risk, (3) Sector Risk, (4) Transaction Risk and (5) Business Partnership Risk. He further detailed these categories as follows:

  1. Company Risk-Lawyer believes this is “only to be likely to be relevant when assessing a number of different companies – either when managing a portfolio of companies from the perspective of a head office of a conglomerate or private equity house.” High risk companies involve, some of the following characteristics:
  • Private companies with a close shareholder group;
  • Large, diverse and complex groups with a decentralized management structure;
  • An autocratic top management;
  • A previous history of compliance issues; and/or
  • Poor marketplace perception.
  1. Country Risk-this area involves countries which have a high reported level or perception of corruption, have failed to enact effective anti-corruption legislation and have a failure to be transparent in procurement and investment policies. Obviously the most recent, annual Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index can be a good starting point. Other indices you might consider are the Worldwide Governance Indicators and the Global Integrity index.
  2. Sector Risk-these involve areas which require a significant amount of government licensing or permitting to do business in a country. It includes the usual suspects of:
  • Extractive industries;
  • Oil and gas services;
  • Large scale infrastructure areas;
  • Telecoms;
  • Pharmaceutical, medical device and health care;
  • Financial services.
  1. Transaction Risk-Lawyer says that this risk “first and foremost identifies and analyses the financial aspects of a payment or deal. This means that it is necessary to think about where your money is ending up”. Indicia of transaction risk include:
  • High reward projects;
  • Involve many contractor or other third party intermediaries; and/or
  • Do not appear to have a clear legitimate object.
  1. Business Partnership Risk-this prong recognizes that certain manners of doing business present more corruption risk than others. It may include:
  • Use of third party representatives in transactions with foreign government officials;
  • A number of consortium partners or joint ventures partners; and/or
  • Relationships with politically exposed persons (PEPs).

There are a number of ways you can slice and dice your basic inquiry. As with almost all FCPA compliance, it is important that your protocol be well thought out. If you use one, some or all of the above as your basic inquiries into your risk analysis, it should be acceptable for your starting point.

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

August 13, 2014

Thinking Through Risk Rankings of Third Parties

7K0A0014-2One question often posed to me is how to think through some of the relationships a company has with its various third parties in order to reasonably risk rank them. Initially I would break this down into sales and supply chain to begin any such analysis. Anecdotally, it is said that over 95% of all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions involve third parties so this is one area where companies need to put some thoughtful consideration. However, the key is that if you employ a “check-the-box” approach it may not only be inefficient but more importantly, ineffective. The reason for this is because each compliance program should be tailored to an organization’s specific needs, risks and challenges. The information provided below should not be considered a substitute for a company’s own assessment of the corporate compliance program most appropriate for that particular business organization. In the end, if designed carefully, implemented earnestly, and enforced fairly, a company’s compliance program—no matter how large or small the organization—will allow the company, generally, to prevent violations, detect those that do occur, and remediate them promptly and appropriately.

Sales Side

I tend to view things in a straightforward manner when it comes to representatives on the sales side of your business. I believe that third party representatives you might have, whatever you might call them, i.e. sales reps, sales agents, sales agents, commissioned sales agents, or anything else, are high risk and therefore they should receive your highest level of scrutiny. This is also true with any party that might be called, charitably or not, ‘a partner’ whether that is a joint venture (JV) partner, plain old partner, Teaming Partner or another monickered ‘partner’. However, under this approach you should also consider the perception of corruption in the geographic area that you will use the third party. I recognize that you can overlay a financial threshold but the reality is that if a sales representative generates such a small amount of money for your business you probably do not need them as representative.

At least with distributors, I have seen merit in more sophisticated approaches such as that set out by David Simon, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, who advocates a risk analysis should more appropriately based on the nature of a company’s relationships with their distributors. The goal should be to determine which distributors are the most likely to qualify as agents; for whose acts the company would likely to be held responsible.  He argues that it is a continuum of risk; that is, on the low-risk end are distributors that are really nothing more than re-sellers with little actual affiliation with the supplier company. On the high-risk end are distributors who are very closely tied to the supplier company, who effectively represent the company in the market and end up looking more like a quasi-subsidiary than a customer.

Simon looks at agency principles to guide his analysis of whether a distributor qualifies as an agent for FCPA purposes. He argues that factors to consider include:

  • The volume of sales made to the distributor;
  • The percentage of total sales of the distributor’s total business the principal’s product represents;
  • Whether the distributor represents the principal in the market, including whether it can (and does) use the company trademarks and logos in its business; and

Whether the principal company is involved in the running of the distributor’s business (such as by training the distributor’s sales agents, imposing performance goals and objectives, or providing reimbursement for sales activity).

Once a company segregates out the high-risk distributors that likely qualify as agents and potentially subject the company to FCPA liability from those that are mere re-sellers and pose less FCPA risk, FCPA compliance procedures can be tailored appropriately. For those distributors that qualify as “agents” and also pose FCPA risk, full FCPA due diligence, certifications, training and contract language are imperative. For those that do not, more limited compliance measures that reflect the risk-adjusted potential liability are perfectly appropriate.

Supply Chain

This determination of the level of due diligence and categorization of a supplier should depend on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, whether the supplier is (1) located, or will operate, in a high risk country; (2) associated with, or recommended or required by, a government official or his or her representative; (3) currently under investigation, the subject of criminal charges, or was recently convicted of criminal violations, including any form of corruption; (4) a multinational publicly traded corporation with a recognized exemplary system of compliance and internal controls, that has not been recently investigated or convicted of any corruption offense or that has taken appropriate corrective action to remedy such conduct; or (5) a provider of widely available services and products that are not industry specific, are offered to the public at large and do not fall under the definition of Minimal-Risk Supplier detailed below.

A High-Risk Supplier is an individual or an entity that is engaged to provide non-project specific goods or services to a company. It presents a higher level of compliance risk because of the presence of one or more of the following factors: (a) It is based or operates in a country (including the supply of goods or services to a company) that poses a high risk for corruption, money laundering, or commercial bribery; (b) It supplies goods or services to a company from a high-risk country; (c) It has a reputation in the business community for questionable business practices or ethics; or (d) It has been convicted of, or is alleged to have been involved in, illegal conduct and has failed to undertake effective remedial actions. Finally, it presents one or more of the following factors,: (1) It is located in a country that has inadequate regulatory oversight of its activities; (2) it is in an unregulated business; (3) its ultimate or beneficial ownership is difficult to determine; (4) the company has an annual spend of more than $100,000 with the supplier; (5) it was established or registered in a jurisdiction where ownership is not transparent or that permits ownership in the form of bearer shares; (6) it is registered or conducts business in a jurisdiction that does not have anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws comparable to those of the United States and the United Kingdom; or (7) it lacks a discernable and substantial business history.

A Low-Risk Supplier is an individual or a non-publicly held entity that conducts business such as a sole proprietorship, partnership or privately held corporation, located in a Low-Risk Country. Some indicia include that it (1) supplies goods, equipment or services directly to a company in a Low-Risk Country; (2) a company has an annual spend of less than $100,000 with the supplier; and (3) the supplier has no involvement with any foreign government, government entity, or Government Official. However, if the supplier has other indicia of lower risk such that it is a publicly-held company, it may be considered a Low-Risk Supplier because it is subject to the highest disclosure and auditing and reporting standards such as those under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including those publicly traded on a reputable and highly regulated stock exchange, such as the New York or London exchanges, and are, therefore, subject to oversight by highly regarded regulatory agencies.

Below the high and low risk categories I would add the category of ‘Minimal-Risk Suppliers’ who generally provide to a company goods and services that are non-specific to a particular project and the value of the transaction is $25,000 or less. Some examples might be for the routine purchase of fungible items and services, including, among others: Office supplies, such as paper, furniture, computers, copiers, and printers; Industrial or factory supplies, including cleaning materials, solvents, safety clothing and off-the-shelf equipment and parts; Crating and other standard materials for packing products for shipping; Leasing and rental of company cars and other equipment; and Airline or other travel tickets or services. This category would also include those third parties that provide widely available services and products that are not industry specific, are offered to the public at large. Here you might think of periodicals, florists, daily limousine and taxi, airline and food delivery (including coffee shops, pizza parlors and take out) services.

Last, but certainly not least, is the category of Government Service Providers, which includes entities that generally come into a company through the supply chain, who interact with a foreign government on behalf of your company. Examples might be customs brokers, providers who obtain and process business permits, licenses, visas, work permits and necessary clearances or waivers from government agencies; perform lobbying services; obtain regulatory approvals; negotiate with government agencies regarding the payment of taxes, tax claims, and tax audits. These third parties present some of your highest risks so they need to have not only the highest level of scrutiny but post contract-signing management as well.

The risk ranking of third parties is one of the areas that seems to continue to cause confusion, if not outright bewilderment. The manner in which the articulated risk rankings presented herein is not to be the ‘be-all and end-all’. As the FCPA Guidance reminds us, “An effective compliance program promotes “an orga­nizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law.”…A well-constructed, thought­fully implemented, and consistently enforced compliance and ethics program helps prevent, detect, remediate, and report misconduct, including FCPA violations.” If you think through your risk rankings and can articulate a reasonable basis for doing so followed by documentation, I think your own risk ranking system will survive regulatory scrutiny.

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

August 12, 2014

Does Your Company Still Allow Facilitation Payments?

IMG_3289One of the more confusing areas of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is in that of facilitation payments. Facilitation payments are small bribes but make no mistake about it, they are bribes. For that reason many companies feel they are inconsistent with a company culture of doing business ethically and in compliance with laws prohibiting corruption and bribery. Further, the FCPA Guidance specifies, “while the payment may qualify as an exception to the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, it may violate other laws, both in Foreign Country and elsewhere. In addition, if the payment is not accurately recorded, it could violate the FCPA’s books and records provision.” Finally, further the FCPA Guidance states, “Whether a payment falls within the exception is not dependent on the size of the payment, though size can be telling, as a large payment is more suggestive of corrupt intent to influence a non-routine governmental action. But, like the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions more generally, the facilitating payments exception focuses on the purpose of the payment rather than its value.” [emphasis in original text]

In recent remarks, Thomas C. Baxter, Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicated a general unease with facilitation payments. Baxter was quoted in the FCPA Blog for the following, “Baxter said an organizational policy that allows some types of official corruption — including facilitating payments – “diminishes the efficacy of compliance rules that are directed toward stopping official corruption.”” Further, “While I understand that the exception is grounded in a practical reality, I feel that zero tolerance for official corruption would have been a better choice. To any public servant with an extended hand, I would say in a loud and clear voice, “pull it back and do your job.” And, let me note the OECD Working Group on Bribery recommends that all countries encourage companies to prohibit or discourage facilitating payments.”

In addition to these clear statements about whether the FCPA should continue to allow said bribes; you should also consider the administrative nightmare for any international company. The UK Bribery Act does not have any such exception, exemption or defense along the lines of the FCPA facilitation payment exception. This means that even if your company allows facilitation payments, it must exempt out every UK Company or subsidiary from the policy. Further, if your company employs any UK citizens, they are subject to the UK Bribery Act no matter who they work for and where they may work in the world so they must also be exempted. Finally, if your US Company does business with a UK or other company subject to the UK Bribery Act, you may be prevented contractually from making facilitation payments while working under that customer’s contract. As I said, an administrative nightmare.

  1. The Statute

When the FCPA was initially passed in 1977, the facilitating payment exception was found under the definition of foreign official. However, with the 1988 Amendments, a more explicit exception was written into the statute making it clear that the anti-bribery provisions “shall not apply to any facilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official, political party, or party official the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action . . .” The statute itself provided a list of examples of facilitation payments in the definition of routine governmental actions. It included the following:

  • Obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents;
  • Processing governmental papers such as visas and work orders;
  • Providing police protection, mail services, scheduling inspections;
  • Providing utilities, cargo handling; or
  • Actions of a similar nature.

It is important to note that the language of the FCPA makes it clear that a facilitation payment is not an affirmative defense but an exception to the general FCPA proscription against bribery and corruption. Unfortunately for the FCPA Practitioner there is no dollar limit articulated in the FCPA regarding facilitation payments. Even this limited exception has come under increasing criticism. As far back as 2009, the OECD studied the issue and recommended that member countries encourage their corporations to not allow the making of facilitating payments, “in view of the corrosive effect of small facilitation payments, particularly on sustainable economic development and the rule of law.”

Interestingly, one of the clearest statements about facilitation payments comes not from a FCPA case about facilitation payments but the case of Kay v. US, 359 F.3d 738, 750-51 (5th Cir. 2004). This case dealt with whether payment of bribes to obtain a favorable tax ruling was prohibited under the FCPA. In its opinion the Fifth Circuit commented on the limited nature of the facilitating payments exception when it said:

A brief review of the types of routine governmental actions enumerated by Congress shows how limited Congress wanted to make the grease exceptions. Routine governmental action, for instance, includes “obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country,” and “scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or inspections related to transit of goods across country.” Therefore, routine governmental action does not include the issuance of every official document or every inspection, but only (1) documentation that qualifies a party to do business and (2) scheduling an inspection—very narrow categories of largely non-discretionary, ministerial activities performed by mid- or low-level foreign functionaries.

2. Enforcement Actions


The FCPA landscape is littered with companies who sustained FCPA violations due to payments which did not fall into the facilitation payment exception. In 2008, Con-way Inc., a global freight forwarder, paid a $300,000 penalty for making hundreds of relatively small payments to Customs Officials in the Philippines. The value of the payments Con-way was fined for making totaled $244,000 and were made to induce the officials to violate customs regulations, settle customs disputes, and reduce or not enforce otherwise legitimate fines for administrative violations.

Helmerich and Payne

In 2009, Helmerich and Payne, Inc., paid a penalty and disgorgement fee of $1.3 million for payments which were made to secure customs clearances in Argentina and Venezuela. The payments ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 but were not properly recorded and were made to import/export goods that were not within the respective country’s regulations; to import goods that could not lawfully be imported; and to evade higher duties and taxes on the goods.


Finally, there is the Panalpina enforcement action. As reported in the FCPA Blog, this matter was partly resolved last year with the payment by Panalpina and six of its customers of over $257 million in fines and penalties. Panalpina, acting as freight forwarder for its customers, made payments to circumvent import laws, reduce customs duties and tax assessments and to obtain preferential treatment for importing certain equipment into various countries but primarily in West Africa.


Then there is the DynCorp International investigation matter. As reported in various sources the matter relates to approx. $300,000 in payments made by subcontractors who wished to speed up their visa processing and expedite receipt of certain licenses on behalf of DynCorp. This investigation has been going on for several years and there is no anticipated conclusion date at this time.

3.      Some Guidance

So what does the Department of Justice (DOJ) look at when it reviews a company’s FCPA compliance program with regards to facilitation payments? Initially, if there is a pattern of such small payments, it would raise a Red Flag and cause additional investigations, but this would not be the end of the inquiry. There are several other factors which the DOJ could look towards in making a final determination on this issue. The line of inquiry the DOJ would take is as follows:

  1. Size of payment – Is there an outer limit? No, there is no outer limit but there is some line where the perception shifts. If a facilitating payment is over $100 you are arguing from a point of weakness. The presumption of good faith is against you. You might be able to persuade the government at an amount under $100. But anything over this amount and the government may well make further inquiries. So, for instance, the DOJ might say that all facilitation payments should be accumulated together and this would be a pattern and practice of bribery.
  2. What is a routine governmental action? Are we entitled to this action, have we met all of our actions or are we asking the government official to look the other way on some requirement? Are we asking the government official to give us a break? The key question here is whether you are entitled to the action otherwise.
  3. Does the seniority of the governmental official matter? This is significant because it changes the presumption of whether something is truly discretionary. The higher the level of the governmental official involved, the greater chance his decision is discretionary.
  4. Does the action have to be non-discretionary? Yes, because if it is discretionary, then a payment made will appear to be obtaining some advantage that is not available to others.
  5. What approvals should be required? A facilitation payment is something that must be done with an appropriate process. The process should have thought and the decision made by people who are the experts within the company on such matters.
  6. Risk of facilitation payments and third parties? Whatever policy you have, it must be carried over to third parties acting on your behalf or at your direction. If a third party cannot control this issue, the better compliance practice would be to end the business relationship.
  7. How should facilitation payments be recorded? Facilitation payments must be recorded accurately. You should have a category entitled “Facilitation Payments” in your company’s internal accounting system. The labeling should be quite clear and they are critical to any audit trail so recording them is quite significant.
  8. Monitoring programs? There must always be ongoing monitoring programs to review your company’s internal controls, policies and procedures regarding facilitation payments.

So we return to the question of when does a grease payment become a bribe? There is no clear line of demarcation. The test seems to turn on the amount of money involved, to whom it is paid and the frequency of the payments. Additionally, accurate books and records are a must. Finally, remember that the defense of facilitation payments is an exception to the FCPA prohibition against bribery. Any defendant which wishes to avail itself of this exception at trial would have to proffer credible evidence to support its position, but at the end of the day, it would be the trier of fact which would decide. So, much like any compliance defense, the exception is only available if you use it at trial and it would be difficult to imagine that any company will want to use the facilitation payment exception.

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

July 24, 2014

Code of Conduct, Compliance Policies and Procedures-Part III

Policies and ProceduresToday, I continue with Part III of my four-part series on the best practices surrounding your Code of Conduct and anti-corruption policies and procedures. In this post, I take a look at drafting policies and procedures. I conclude with some thoughts by well-known policy pundit Michael Rasmussen on management of policies going forward.

One of the key components of any best practices compliance regime under any anti-bribery and anti-corruption program is policies and procedures. Policies and procedures tie together a company, its business environment, the risks it faces and the compliance requirements. Policies procedures are a specific requirement for any anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance regime. In the FCPA Guidance it stated, “Whether a company has policies and procedures that outline responsibilities for compliance within the company, detail proper internal controls, auditing practices, and documentation policies, and set forth disciplinary procedures will also be considered by DOJ and SEC.” Under the UK Bribery Act, policies are discussed in the Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance program under Principle V – Communication, where it states “The business seeks to ensure that its bribery prevention policies and procedures are embedded and understood throughout the company through internal and external communication, including training, that is proportionate to the risks it faces.”

As further stated in the FCPA Guidance, “Among the risks that a company may need to address include the nature and extent of transactions with foreign governments, including payments to foreign officials; use of third parties; gifts, travel, and entertainment expenses; charitable and political donations; and facilitating and expediting payments.” Policies help form the basis of expectation and conduct in your company and Procedures are the documents that implement these standards of conduct.

Borrowing from an article in the Houston Business Journal (HBJ) by John Allen, entitled “Company policies are source and structure of stability”, I found some interesting and important insights into the role of policies in any anti-corruption compliance program. Allen says that the role of policies is “to protect companies, their employees and consumers, and despite an occasional opposite outcome, that is typically what they do. A company’s policies provide a basic set of guidelines for their employees to follow. They can include general dos and don’ts or more specific safety procedures, work process flows, communication guidelines or dress codes. By establishing what is and isn’t acceptable workplace behavior, a company helps mitigate the risks posed by employees who, if left unchecked, might behave badly or make foolhardy decisions.”

Allen notes that policies “are not a surefire guarantee that things won’t go wrong, they are the first line of defense if things do.” The effective implementation and enforcement of policies demonstrate to regulators and the government that a “company is operating professionally and proactively for the benefit of its stakeholders, its employees and the community it serves.” If it is a company subject to the FCPA, by definition it is an international company so that can be quite a wide community.

Allen believes that there are five key elements to any “well-constructed policy”. They are:

  • identify to whom the policy applies;
  • establish the objective of the policy;
  • explain why the policy is necessary;
  • outline examples of acceptable and unacceptable behavior under the policy; and
  • warn of the consequences if an employee fails to comply with the policy.

Allen notes that for polices to be effective there must be communication. He believes that training is only one type of communication. I think that this is a key element for compliance practitioners because if you have a 30,000+ worldwide work force, simply the logistics of training can appear daunting. Small groups, where detailed questions about policies can be raised and discussed, can be a powerful teaching tool. Allen even suggests posting FAQ’s in common areas as another technique. And please do not forget that one of the reasons Morgan Stanley received a declination to prosecute by the DOJ was that it sent out bi-monthly compliance reminder emails to its employee Garth Peterson for the seven years he was employed by the company.

Interesting, Allen emphasizes, “having policies written out and signed by employees provides what some consider the most vital layer of communication. A signed acknowledgement can serve as evidentiary support if a future issue arises.” I also like it when others recognize my ‘Document, Document and Document’ mantra for FCPA compliance.

While I think that most compliance practitioners understand this need for policies and procedures, one of the things that is not usually emphasized at a company is effective policy management. Michael Rasmussen writing in Compliance Week in an article entitled “Improving Policies Through Metrics” discussed the need for effective policy management. He believes that it requires that a company must periodically review their policies to ensure that they are relevant and aligned with both current laws and corporate objectives. This is because today’s business environment is dynamic and involves both internal and external factors, so, consequently, as a company evolves and changes its policies need to be updated to reflect these changes.

Rasmussen believes that at a minimum, policies must be reviewed annually. He recommends that each policy should go through a yearly review process to determine if it is still appropriate. There should be a “system of accountability and workflow that facilitates” any policy review process. The end product should be a decision to “retire the process, keep the policy as it is, or revise the policy.” Rasmussen lists five items that a policy owner should evaluate as a part of the policy review process.

  • Violations. Here Rasmussen believes that information from reporting systems such as hotlines or other anonymous lines as well as internal or external investigations must be reviewed. Not only would such information indicate if a company policy was violated but the follow-up investigation would help to determine how the policy might have failed, whether it was through “lack of awareness, unauthorized exceptions [or] outright violations.”
  • Understanding. Here Rasmussen writes that there should be an analysis of “training and awareness programs, policy attestations” and attendant metrics to determine an appropriate level of policy understanding. He believes that questions to a helpdesk or compliance department could help to discover any ambiguities in a policy that might need to be corrected.
  • Exceptions. If you have a policy it should be followed. If an exception to a policy was granted the reason for the exception should have been documented. If there are too many exceptions granted for a policy, it might indicate that “the policy is inappropriate and unenforceable” and therefore should be revised.
  • Compliance. A policy should govern and authorize internal controls. These internal controls should be reviewed in conjunction with the policy review to determine overall policy effectiveness. This is because “At the end of the day the policy needs to be complied with.”
  • Environment. All the factors around a policy are in flux. This includes a company’s risk profile, its business strategy, laws and regulations. Since a business’ climate is dynamic, a policy should be reviewed in the context of a company’s overall situation and revised accordingly.

If there is a change in a policy it is important that not only the correct change be made but that any change is documented. An audit trail is a key component for a company to internally understand when a change is made and the reason for that change but also to demonstrate to a regulator effective policy management and to present “a defensible history of policy interactions on communications, training, acknowledgements, assessments and related details needed to show the was enforced and operational.” This audit trail should include “key data points such as the owner, who read it, who was trained, acceptance acknowledgements and dates for specific policy versions”. In addition to an audit trail, policy revisions should be archived for referral back at a later time. So, once again, the key message is document, document and document.

Just as best practices in the FCPA compliance arena evolve, so do business practices, markets and risks. If you throw in the complexities from an inter-connected global business milieu, the task becomes even tougher. Business policies are one of the keystones of a company’s communications to its employees on what it expects and what is required of its employees. To keep policies up-to-date and properly take advantage of this valuable tool, policies need to be evaluated and updated as appropriate. If your company fails to do so this takes away from the value of having policies in the first place. I hope that you will use the techniques which Rasmussen has described to help you effectively manage your policies going forward.

The FCPA Guidance ends its section on policies with the following, “Regardless of the specific policies and procedures implemented, these standards should apply to personnel at all levels of the company.” Allen puts a bit differently in that “it is important that policies are applied fairly and consistently across the organization.” He notes that the issue can be that “If policies are applied inconsistently, there is a greater chance that an employee dismissed for breaching a policy could successfully claim he or she was unfairly terminated.” This last point cannot be over-emphasized. If an employee is going to be terminated for fudging their expense accounts in Brazil, you had best make sure that same conduct lands your top producer in the US with the same quality of discipline.

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

June 20, 2014

The Oath of the Tennis Court and How to Document, Document, and Document

Filed under: Best Practices,Document Document Document,FCPA — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am

Oath of the Tennis CourtI have an undergraduate degree in European History, French Revolution to the Present, which was then 1978. Perhaps not the most marketable of college degrees but for a lover of history it was a ton of fun. One of my favorite study subjects was the French Revolution, particularly the phase from 1789-1792; the period of almost Constitutional Monarchy, before the King was executed and the Terror set in. While this part of the Revolution failed, it does not mean that was not a noble effort by the French people, who had been inspired in large part by the success of our American Revolution.

In the spring of 1789, King Louis XVI, called the Estates-General into session. It was a national assembly that represented the three “estates” of the French people – the nobles, the clergy, and the commons. The Estates-General had not been assembled since 1614, and its deputies drew up long lists of grievances and called for sweeping political and social reforms.

The Third Estate, which had the most representatives, declared itself the National Assembly and took an oath to force a new constitution on the king. Initially seeming to yield, Louis legalized the National Assembly under the Third Estate but then surrounded Versailles with troops and dismissed Jacques Necker, a popular minister of state who had supported reforms. In response, Parisians mobilized and on July 14 stormed the Bastille, a state prison where they believed ammunition was stored, and the French Revolution began. On this date in 1789, one of the most dramatic events occurred; The Oath of the Tennis Court, where the deputies of the Third Estate, which represent commoners and the lower clergy, met on the Jeu de Paume, an indoor tennis court, in defiance of King Louis XVI’s order to disperse. In these modest surroundings, they took a historic oath not to disband until a new French constitution had been adopted.

The Oath of the Tennis Court was recorded for each member who took part. In other words, there was full documentation of who took the oath and the substance of the oath taken. It was a very good example of what I continue to hammer as the three most important things in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance, that being Document, Document, and Document. However, many people ask what that means more than simply writing something down.

I am currently attending the UL EduNeering Leadership Forum and there are several compliance representatives from the pharmaceutical industry in attendance. One thing I have learned is that the pharmaceutical industry has a definition of Good Documentation Practice (GDP), which describes standards by which documentation is created and maintained in the industry. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets some GDP standards, others fall under the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP). Finally, all pharmaceutical, bioscience and healthcare companies, as well as their vendor partners, must observe GDP or face warnings or penalties levied by the FDA.

In an article by Barry Peters and Heather D. Ferrence, entitled “Importance of Implementing Good Documentation Practices”, they note that the World Health Organization (WHO) says the some of the purposes of GDP include:

  • To define the specifications and procedures for all materials and methods of manufacture and control.
  • To ensure that all personnel concerned with manufacturing know what to do and when to do it.
  • To ensure that authorized persons have all the information necessary to decide whether or not to release a batch of a drug for sale.
  • To ensure the existence of documented evidence, traceability and to provide records and an audit trail that will permit investigation.
  • To ensure the availability of the data needed for validation, review and statistical analysis.

Moreover, “an essential part of all aspects related to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), adhering to GDP helps prevent errors within various processes, such as product quality and safety, state of manufacturing facilities and other related activities, and ensures that each company is following strict standard operating procedures (SOPs). In a regulated industry, such as pharmaceuticals, quality cannot be assured without accurate documents and GDP.” Finally, it is to be noted that “it is imperative that all documentation is concise, legible, accurate and traceable.”

Adapting the authors’ suggestions specific to the pharmaceutical industry, I submit the following for your consideration in your Document, Document, and Document practices in FCPA compliance:

  • Lack of proper record keeping when documents are transferred from one department to another.
  • Critical oversight regarding document issue, data collection and document review.
  • Consistent labeling that includes identification codes and any document revision codes.
  • Ensuring proper security and storage of documents during review process.
  • Proper and consistent identification of all documents through all processes.
  • Ensuring that all those whose signatures appear on the documents understand why they signed the documents as well as any and all responsibilities associated with the signing of the documents.

To the above list I would add some additional suggestions:

Document maintenance

  • Regularly reviewed and kept current
  • Retained and available for appropriate duration
  • Electronic document management systems are validated
  • Electronic records are backed up

Document modification

  • Handwritten modifications are signed and dated
  • Altered text is not obscured (e.g., no correction fluid)
  • Where appropriate, the reason for alteration must be noted
  • Controls exist to prevent the inadvertent use of superseded documents
  • Electronic versions can only be modified by authorized personnel
  • Access to electronic versions must be controlled by password or other means
  • A history (audit trail) must be maintained of changes and deletions to electronic versions
  • Supporting documents can be added to the original document as an attachment for clarification or recording data. Attachments should be referenced at least once within the original document. Ideally, each page of the attachment is clearly identified (i.e. labeled as “Attachment X”, “Page X of X”, signed and dated by person who attached it, etc.)

Setting and following good document practices is an essential aspect of compliance with federal regulations, such as the FDA, who governs large aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, and other federal laws such as the FCPA. So in addition to documenting your actions, you should also follow a written protocol for document maintenance and subsequent modifications.

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

May 28, 2014

What Does an Effective Compliance Program Look Like? – The Regulators Perspective

Compliance ProgramWhat does an effective compliance program look like? Is it one that follows the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as set out in the 2012 FCPA Guidance? How about one that uses the Six Principals of Adequate Procedures relating to the UK Bribery Act as its guideposts? Or should a company follow the OECD Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance? More importantly, for anti-corruption enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), what does the Department of Justice (DOJ) or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) look for when assessing a compliance program?

Over the years, we have heard various formulations of inquiries that regulators might use when reviewing a compliance program. While not exactly a review of a compliance protocol, one of my favorites is what I call McNulty’s Maxims or the three questions that former United States Deputy Attorney General, and  Baker & McKenzie LLP partner, Paul McNulty said were three general areas of inquiry the he would assess regarding an enforcement action when he was at the DOJ. They are: first: “What did you do to stay out of trouble?” second: “What did you do when you found out?” and third: “What remedial action did you take?”

Paul’s former partner at Baker & McKenzie, Stephen Martin, who still runs Baker & McKenzie Compliance Consulting LLC, said that an inquiry he might make was along the lines of the following. First he would ask someone who came in before the DOJ what the company’s annual compliance budget was for the past year. If the answer started with something like, “We did all we could with what we had ($100K, $200K, name the figure), he would then ask, “How much was the corporate budget for Post-It Notes last year?” The answer was always in the 7-figure range. His next question would then be, “Which is more business critical for your company; complying with the FCPA or Post-It Notes?” Unfortunately, it has been Martin’s experience that most companies spent far more on the Post-It Notes than they were willing to invest into their compliance program.

Last week at Compliance Week 2014, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC, gave one of the Keynote Addresses. In his remarks he talked about the importance that the SEC is putting into compliance. He said “I start from the premise that the companies that have done well in avoiding significant regulatory issues typically have prioritized legal and compliance issues, and developed a strong culture of compliance across their business lines and throughout the management chain. This is something I observed firsthand while in private practice and have come to fully appreciate from my perch at the SEC.”

But, more importantly, he said that he has “found that you can predict a lot about the likelihood of an enforcement action by asking a few simple questions about the role of the company’s legal and compliance departments in the firm.” He then went on to detail some rather straightforward questions that he believes can show just how much a company is committed to having a robust compliance regime.

  • Are legal and compliance personnel included in critical meetings?
  • Are their views typically sought and followed?
  • Do legal and compliance officers report to the CEO and have significant visibility with the board?
  • Are the legal and compliance departments viewed as an important partner in the business and not simply as support functions or a cost center?

Beyond simply going into the DOJ or SEC and claiming that your company is very ethical and does business in compliance with the FCPA, how can a company demonstrate the above? This is where the Tom Fox Mantra of Document, Document and Document comes into play. No matter how much input the compliance function has into the above suggested inquiries if the inputs are not documented, it is if they did not exist. So for meetings, you should keep attendance sheets or notations. A compliance representative can put a short, three to four sentence memo into the file about the recommendations and the response thereto. If the compliance department advise was not followed, there should be a business reason documented for the decision. Moreover, if there is a rejection of the compliance function advise and the course of action leads to some type of FCPA issue, it may well be assumed the company knew or should have known that the course of action taken could reasonably lead to a FCPA issue if not full blown violation. As to the issues of compliance visibility at the Board level, once again the documentation of any presentation and their substance can provide evidence to answer the query in the affirmative. But the key to all of these questions is if there is documentation to prove the assertions that they actually occurred.

Near the end of his presentation, Cerensey said that “Far too often, the answer to these questions is no, and the absence of real legal and compliance involvement in company deliberations can lead to compliance lapses, which, in turn, result in enforcement issues. When I was in private practice, I always could detect a significant difference between companies that prioritized legal and compliance and those that did not. When legal and compliance were not equal partners in the business, and were not consulted as a matter of course, problems were inevitable.”

McNulty’s Maxims, Martin’s question on budget and now Cerensey’s questions all provide significant guideposts to how regulators think about FCPA compliance programs. For me, I think the point is that companies which actually Do Compliance are easy to spot. For all the gnashing of teeth about how hard it is to comply with what the DOJ and SEC want to see in FCPA compliance, when the true focus can be distilled into whether a company actually does compliance as opposed to saying how ethical they are, I think it simplifies the inquiry and the issues senior management and a Board of Directors really needs to pay attention to.

For a copy of the full text of Director Cerensey’s remarks, 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

April 22, 2014

Gifts, Travel and Entertainment under the FCPA – Part I

Travel and GiftsEd. Note-Today’s blog post will begin a two-part review of gifts, travel and entertainment under the FCPA.

One of the first thing that many companies will try to put in place is a gifts, entertainment and travel policy when looking at an overall compliance program. I find the reality to be that not only is this one of the more easier things to implement because one of the most consistent things taught at any organization, of one person or more, is to record the even and keep receipts. The base reason is not corporate or even Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) record keeping. It is IRS Regulations. Even lawyers know you have to keep receipts. This means getting employees to document, document and document, who they may have taken to dinner or entertained, the amount, the business purpose and if they were a foreign government official, their title, this does not seem like too much of a stretch to ask.

The part that does seem different, or new, to employees is the limit. By this I mean the amount of money which can be spent on a dinner, gift or entertainment without prior approval from the compliance function. For any expenditure above those predefined limits an employee must seek pre-approval from the compliance function prior to exceeding or incurring the expense.

An on-going debate is whether to take a hard and fast line over which all employees must come to the compliance function for pre-approval regarding any gifts and entertainment. Many sales people like this approach because they want to know precisely what the line is that they can go up to. Companies may take a more values-based approach, which looks at the overall value an employee may spend over a one year or other time period but the monitoring is at the backend of the transactions.

A rules based approach is one which generally sets a dollar threshold for gifts and entertainment in two general categories; they are gifts and entertainment for foreign governmental officials and gifts and entertainment for non-foreign governmental officials. Below the threshold, employees can provide gifts and entertainment without the need for pre-approval, above the threshold; employees have to seek pre-approval from the compliance function. Limits are typically lower for foreign governmental officials than non-governmental officials. The gift or entertainment request from the employee requires a reasonably detailed business purpose and the monetary request involved should not appear to be unreasonable.

The second approach is a more values based approach. It allowed the regions to set their own top end values to gifts and entertainment, based upon the nuances and risks of the geographic area. The responsibility of the compliance department in such a values based approach would be two-fold. The first would be to engage in more training for employees on gifts and entertainment issues. The second would be greater monitoring of employee gifts and entertainment.

Values based monitoring is more extensive than for rules based monitoring. If an employee goes above the overall company limit, the matter must be investigated through an independent review of the amount spent; who it was spent on and the business purpose. This must then be written up and the independent investigator must make a determination of whether a compliance issue violation has occurred. While this post-event work seems costly and disruptive to the business, company representatives say this works for them.

One of the interesting tangents in the area of gifts and entertainment is the issue of proportionality. Proportionality in the context of gifts and entertainment in anti-corruption compliance programs generally relates to the appropriate types of gifts or entertainment to be provided to a high-level company official. One rule of thumb is if the entertainment provided was typical for a company executive and that executive could routinely pay for it, this was indicia that it was reasonable if provided from one senior level executive to another. But you must remember about how such information will be viewed in the context of a FCPA investigation, as to what is reasonable or even ‘modest’ is usually very different than the view of a sales person.

A. The Statute

Under the FCPA, the following affirmative defense regarding the payment of expenses exists:

[it] shall be an affirmative defense [that] the payment, gift, offer or promise of anything of value that was made, was a reasonable and bona fide expenditure, such as travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of a foreign official, party, party official, or candidate and was directly related to…the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services; or…the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(c)(2)(A)-(B).

There is no de minimis provision. The presentation of a gift or business entertainment expense can constitute a violation of the FCPA if this is coupled with the corrupt intent to obtain or retain business.

B. FCPA Guidance

There was a good discussion of gifts and entertainment in the FCPA Guidance. In it the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made clear that “A small gift or token of esteem or gratitude is often an appropriate way for business people to display respect for each other. Some hallmarks of appropriate gift-giving are when the gift is given openly and transparently, properly recorded in the giver’s books and records, provided only to reflect esteem or gratitude, and permitted under local law…”

Just as reasonably priced gifts are appropriate to give out, the FCPA Guidance specifies that “… Items of nominal value, such as cab fare, reasonable meals and entertainment expenses, or company promotional items, are unlikely to improperly influence an official, and, as a result, are not, without more, items that have resulted in enforcement action by DOJ or SEC.” However, as the costs and value begin to rise, so does the potential FCPA risk. The FCPA Guidance states, “The larger or more extravagant the gift, however, the more likely it was given with an improper purpose. DOJ and SEC enforcement cases thus have involved single instances of large, extravagant gift-giving (such as sports cars, fur coats, and other luxury items) as well as widespread gifts of smaller items as part of a pattern of bribes. For example, in one case brought by DOJ and SEC, a defendant gave a government official a country club membership fee and a generator, as well as household maintenance expenses, payment of cell phone bills, an automobile worth $20,000, and limousine services. The same official also received $250,000 through a third-party agent.”

The FCPA Guidance does specify some types of examples of improper travel and entertainment as follows:

  • $12,000 birthday trip for a government decision maker from Mexico that included visits to wineries and dinners;
  • $10,000 spent on dinners, drinks, and entertainment for a government official;
  • A trip to Italy for eight Iraqi government officials that consisted primarily of sightseeing and included $1,000 in “pocket money” for each official;
  • A trip to Paris for a government official and his wife that consisted primarily of touring activities via a chauffeur-driven vehicle.

The FCPA Guidance points out something that is rather obvious. If a company has a culture of compliance in the area of gifts, travel and entertainment that allows violations of the FCPA, it probably is lax in other areas. We recently saw this played out in the Hewlett-Packard (HP) FCPA enforcement actions where lax internal controls allowed HP-Poland to pay over $600,000 in cash to a Polish government official; pay for his travel to Las Vegas at full HP expense and also purchase him gifts valued at over $30,000. The gifts, travel and entertainment on their own could have been stand-alone FCPA violations but they were certainly symptomatic of an entire culture at HP-Poland, which allowed such conduct to occur.

Tomorrow we will review some enforcement actions and Opinion Releases.

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

April 4, 2014

Life Cycle Management of Third Parties – Step 5 – Management of the Relationship

Five stepsToday ends my review of what I believe to be the five steps in the management of a third party under an anti-bribery regime such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act. On Monday, I reviewed Step 1 – the Business Justification, which should kick off your process with any third party relationship. On Tuesday, I looked at Step 2 – the questionnaire that you should send and third party and what information you should elicit. On Wednesday, I discussed Step 3 – the due diligence that you should perform based upon the information that you have received from and ascertained on the third party. On Thursday, I examined Step 4 – how you should use the information you obtain in the due diligence process and the compliance terms and conditions which you should place in any commercial agreement with a third party. Today, I will conclude this series by reviewing how you should manage the relationship after the contract is signed.

I often say that after you complete Steps 1-4 in the life cycle management of a third party, the real work begins and that work is found in Step 5– the Management of the Relationship. While the work done in Steps 1-4 are absolutely critical, if you do not manage the relationship it can all go down hill very quickly and you might find yourself with a potential FCPA or UK Bribery Act violation. There are several different ways that you should manage your post-contract relationship. This post will explore some of the tools which you can use to help make sure that all the work you have done in Steps 1-4 will not be for naught and that you will have a compliant anti-corruption relationship with your third party going forward.

Managing third party relationships is an area that continues to give companies trouble and heartburn. The “2013 Anti-Bribery and Corruption Benchmarking Report – A joint effort between Kroll and Compliance Week” found that many companies are still struggling with ongoing anti-corruption monitoring and training for their third parties. Regarding training, 47% of the respondents said that they conduct no anti-corruption training with their third parties at all. The efforts companies do take to educate and monitor third parties are somewhat pro forma. More than 70% require certification from their third parties that they have completed anti-corruption training; 43% require in-person training and another 40% require online training. Large companies require training considerably more often than smaller ones, although when looking at all the common training methods, 100% of respondents say their company uses at least one method, if not more.

While the FCPA Guidance itself only provides that “companies should undertake some form of ongoing monitoring of third-party relationships”. Diana Lutz, writing in the White Paper by The Steele Foundation entitled “Global anti-corruption and anti-bribery program best practices”, said, “As an additional means of prevention and detection of wrongdoing, an experienced compliance and audit team must be actively engaged in home office and field activities to ensure that financial controls and policy provisions are routinely complied with and that remedial measures for violations or gaps are tracked, implemented and rechecked.”

One noted commentator has discussed techniques to provide this management and oversight any third party relationship. Carol Switzer, President of the Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG), writing in the Compliance Week magazine set out a five-step process for managing corruption risks, which I have adapted for third parties.

  1. Screen – Monitor third party records against trusted data sources for red flags.
  2. Identify – Establish helplines and other open channels for reporting of issues and asking compliance related questions by third parties.
  3. Investigate – Use appropriately qualified investigative teams to obtain and assess information about suspected violations.
  4. Analyze – Evaluate data to determine “concerns and potential problems” by using data analytics, tools and reporting.
  5. Audit – Finally, your company should have regular internal audit reviews and inspections of the third party’s anti-corruption program; including testing and assessment of internal controls to determine if enhancement or modification is necessary.

Based upon the foregoing and other commentators, I believe there are several different roles in a company that play a function in the ongoing monitoring of the third party. While there is overlap, I believe that each role fulfills a critical function in any best practices compliance program.

Relationship Manager

There should be a Relationship Manager for every third party which the company does business with through the sales chain. The Relationship Manager should be a business unit employee who is responsible for monitoring, maintaining and continuously evaluating the relationship between your company and the third party. Some of the duties of the Relationship Manager may include:

  • Point of contact with the Third Party for all compliance issues;
  • Maintaining periodic contact with the Third Party;
  • Meeting annually with the Third Party to review its satisfaction of all company compliance obligations;
  • Submitting annual reports to the company’s Oversight Committee summarizing services provided by the Third Party;
  • Assisting the company’s Oversight Committee with any issues with respect to the Third Party.

Compliance Professional

Just as a company needs a subject matter expert (SME) in anti-bribery compliance to be able to work with the business folks and answer the usual questions that come up in the day-to-day routine of doing business internationally, third parties also need such access. A third party may not be large enough to have its own compliance staff so I advocate a company providing such a dedicated resource to third parties. I do not believe that this will create a conflict of interest or that there are other legal impediments to providing such services. They can also include anti-corruption training for the third party, either through onsite or remote mechanisms. The compliance practitioner should work closely with the relationship manager to provide advice, training and communications to the third party.

Oversight Committee

I advocate that a company should have an Oversight Committee review all documents relating the full panoply of a third party’s relationship with the company. It can be a formal structure or some other type of group but the key is to have the senior management put a ‘second set of eyes’ on any third parties who might represent a company in the sales side. In addition to the basic concept of process validation of your management of third parties, as third parties are recognized as the highest risk in FCPA or Bribery Act compliance, this is a manner to deliver additional management of that risk.

After the commercial relationship has begun the Oversight Committee should monitor the third party relationship on no less than an annual basis. This annual audit should include a review of remedial due diligence investigations and evaluation of any new or supplement risk associated with any negative information discovered from a review of financial audit reports on the third party. The Oversight Committee should review any reports of any material breach of contract including any breach of the requirements of the Company Code of Ethics and Compliance. In addition to the above remedial review, the Oversight Committee should review all payments requested by the third party to assure such payment is within the company guidelines and is warranted by the contractual relationship with the third party. Lastly, the Oversight Committee should review any request to provide the third party any type of non-monetary compensation and, as appropriate, approve such requests.


A key tool in managing the relationship with a third party post-contract is auditing the relationship. I hope that you will have secured audit rights, as that is an important clause in any compliance terms and conditions. Your audit should be a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which your compliance terms and conditions are followed. Noted fraud examiner expert Tracy Coenen described the process as one to (1) capture the data; (2) analyze the data; and (3) report on the data, which is also appropriate for a compliance audit. As a base line I would suggest that any audit of a third party include, at a minimum, a review of the following:

  1. the effectiveness of existing compliance programs and codes of conduct;
  2. the origin and legitimacy of any funds paid to Company;
  3. books, records and accounts, or those of any of its subsidiaries, joint ventures or affiliates, related to work performed for, or services or equipment provided to, Company;
  4. all disbursements made for or on behalf of Company; and
  5. all funds received from Company in connection with work performed for, or services or equipment provided to, Company.

If you want to engage in a deeper dive you might consider evaluation of some of the following areas:

  • Review of contracts with third parties to confirm that the appropriate FCPA compliance terms and conditions are in place.
  • Determine that actual due diligence took place on the third party.
  • Review FCPA compliance training program; both the substance of the program and attendance records.
  • Does the third party have a hotline or any other reporting mechanism for allegations of compliance violations? If so how are such reports maintained? Review any reports of compliance violations or issues that arose through anonymous reporting, hotline or any other reporting mechanism.
  • Does the third party have written employee discipline procedures? If so have any employees been disciplined for any compliance violations? If yes review all relevant files relating to any such violations to determine the process used and the outcome reached.
  • Review employee expense reports for employees in high-risk positions or high-risk countries.
  • Testing for gifts, travel and entertainment that were provided to, or for, foreign governmental officials.
  • Review the overall structure of the third party’s compliance program. If the company has a designated compliance officer to whom, and how, does that compliance officer report? How is the third party’s compliance program designed to identify risks and what has been the result of any so identified?
  • Review a sample of employee commission payments and determine if they follow the internal policy and procedure of the third party.
  • With regard to any petty cash activity in foreign locations, review a sample of activity and apply analytical procedures and testing. Analyze the general ledger for high-risk transactions and cash advances and apply analytical procedures and testing.

In addition to monitoring and oversight of your third parties, you should periodically review the health of your third party management program. Once again I turn to Diana Lutz and her colleague Marjorie Doyle, and their White Paper entitled “Third Party Essentials: A Reputation/Liability Checkup When Using Third Parties Globally”, where they gave a checklist to test companies on their relationships with their third parties.

  1. Do you have a list or database of all your third parties and their information?
  2. Have you done a risk assessment of your third parties and prioritized them by level of risk?
  3. Do you have a due diligence process for the selection of third parties, based on the risk assessment?
  4. Once the risk categories have been determined, create a written due diligence process.
  5. Once the third party has been selected based on the due diligence process, do you have a contract with the third party stating all the expectations?
  6. Is there someone in your organization who is responsible for the management of each of your third parties?
  7. What are “red flags” regarding a third party?

Perhaps now you will understand why I say that after you prepare the Business Justification; send out, receive back and evaluate the Questionnaire; set the appropriate level of Due Diligence; evaluate the due diligence and execute a contract with appropriate Compliance Terms and Conditions; now the real work begins, as you have to manage the third party relationship.

I hope that you have found this review of the life cycle management of third parties helpful for your compliance program.

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

February 18, 2014

Board Investigations and the Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb – Part II

Board of DirectorsYesterday I began an exploration of a recent article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP. In Part I, I reviewed the authors’ five key objectives, which they believe a board must pursue to ensure a successful investigation. Today, I will look at the authors’ seven considerations to facilitate a successful board investigation.

1.             Consider whether you need independent outside counsel

The authors consider that the appearance of partiality “undermines the objectivity and credibility of an investigation.” That means you should not use your regular counsel. The authors cite to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) analysis of how independent board members truly are to explain the need for independent counsel. They state, “the SEC considers the following criteria when determining whether (and how much) to credit self-policing, self-reporting, remediation and cooperation” which will consist of the following factors:

  • Did management, the board or committees consisting solely of outside directors oversee the review?
  • Did company employees or outside persons perform the review?
  • If outside persons, have they done other work for the company?
  • If the review was conducted by outside counsel, had management previously engaged such counsel?
  • How long ago was the firm’s last representation of the company?
  • How often has the law firm represented the company?
  • How much in legal fees has the company paid the firm?

As Andre Agassi might say, ‘perception is reality’.

2.             Consider hiring an experienced “investigator” to lead the internal investigation

Noted internal investigation expert Jim McGrath has written and spoken about the need to utilize specialized counsel in any serious investigation. If a board is leading an investigation, I would submit by definition it is serious. The authors say that your investigation needs to lead by a lawyer with significant experience in conducting internal investigations; a strong background in criminal or SEC enforcement; and has substantive experience in the particular area of law at issue. The traits are needed so that your designated counsel will think like an investigator, not like an in-house lawyer or civil litigator.

3.             Consider the need to retain outside experts

In any Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other anti-corruption investigation, there will be the need for a wider variety of subject matter experts (SME’s) than a compliance professional. The authors correctly recognize that “ if there are accounting issues, forensic accountants might be needed. In this day and age, an electronic discovery consultant is often required, and can be a cost effective option for gathering and processing electronic data for review.” These types of investigations will most probably be cross-border as well and this will require other varieties of expertise. The authors caution that, “The lowest bid may not necessar­ily be the best for a particular investigation. While cost is important, understand the limitations of each consultant and, with input from your investigator, determine which consultant best meets your goals.”

4.             Analyze potential conflicts of interest at the outside and during the investigation

The authors see two types of conflicts of interest that may come to light during an investigation. First is the one which comes up when the law firm or lawyers conducting the inves­tigation are those whose prior legal advice has some bearing on the matters being investigated because a company’s regular outside lawyers represent the company. During an internal investigation, however, the lawyers may be hired by, and represent, the board or its committee. The second occurs when a lawyer or law firm jointly represents the board and employees at the company as regulators have become increasingly concerned with joint representations. Moreover, “The trickier question is what to do when there simply is a risk that representing one client could limit the lawyers’ duties to the other.” So in these situations, joint representation may not be appropriate.

5.             Carefully evaluate Whistleblower allegations

With the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers have become more important and taking their allegations seriously is paramount. This does not mean trying to find out who the whistleblowers might be to punish or stifle them, even if they are located outside the United States and therefore do not have protections under these laws. They can still get hefty bounties. The authors recognize that companies can come to grief when “companies run into problems when whistleblower allegations are discounted, if not outright dismissed, especially if the whistleblower has a history of causing trouble or is perceived as incompetent. When this type of whistleblower makes a claim, it is easy to presume ulterior motives.” While such motives might exist, it does not matter one iota when it comes to the investigation, as “Regulators are very wary of boards that do not satisfactorily evaluate a whistleblower’s complaint based on a perception of the whistleblower himself, as opposed to the substance of the complaint.”

6.             Request regular updates from outside counsel, without limiting the investigation

These types of investigations are long and very costly. They can easily spin out of cost control. But, by trying to manage these costs, a board might be perceived as placing improper limits on the investigation. The “goal is to strike the right balance between the cost of the investigation and its thoroughness and credibility.” To do so, the authors advise that flexibility is an important ingredient. A board can begin the project with an agreed upon initial scope of work and then “revisit the scope of work as the investigation progresses. If conduct is discovered that legitimately calls for expanding the scope of the investigation, then the board can revisit the issue at that point. Put another way, the scope of what to investigate is not a static, one-time decision. It can, and usually does, evolve.” By seeking regular updates and questioning counsel on what they are doing and why, directors can manage costs, while at the same time ensuring that the investigation is sufficiently thorough and credible.

7.             Consider whether an oral report at the conclusion of the investigation is sufficient

While there may be instances in which, due to complexity and the nature of allegations involved, a written report is necessary, the authors believe that there may be times when an oral report delivered to a board is better than a written report for “a written report may be easier to follow and appear to be the logical conclusion to an investigation, it is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor, and it comes with great risk.” The authors indicate three reasons for this position.

First, it is much easier to inadvertently waive the attorney-client privilege if a written report is created and in the wrong hands, such a written report may well create “a road map to a plaintiff” in any shareholder action. Second, once those findings and conclusions are written they may become “set in stone. If later information comes to light that impacts the report’s conclusions, altering the conclusions may undermine the credibility of the entire investigation. So, retaining flexibility to change the findings if further information is later learned is a real advantage of an oral report.” Third, and finally, “it takes time to prepare a well-written and thorough report. When an internal investigation must be conducted quickly, spending time to prepare a written report may not be an efficient use of time.” For all of these reasons, and perhaps others, an oral report presented to the board and documented in the Board of Director meeting minutes may be sufficient.

The authors conclude their piece by stating, “By keeping in mind the issues addressed above, the board will be better prepared for the investigation and readily able to exercise good judgment throughout the review. A well-conducted investigation by the board may spare the company further disruption and costs associated with follow-on investigations by the regulators, or at the very least minimize the company’s exposure.” I would only add that by following some of the prescriptions set out by Bayless and Albarrán your Board might also avoid the fate that befell Lord Carnarvon and the Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.