Archie Bunker, Batgirl and the International Fight Against Corruption

This week saw the death of two notables from the television industry, Bud Yorkin and Yvonne Craig. According to his Obituary in the New York Times (NYT), Yorkin rose up the television industry ranks to eventually team with Norman Lear to produce one of the true “pioneering, provocative and singularly successful satirical series” in the history of television, All In The Family, introducing one of the most recognizable characters in all of TV – Archie Bunker. When I say he began at the bottom end of the business: it literally was that, as he began repairing TVs in New York City bars. All In The Family not only broke ground by discussing taboo subjects it also became “the first TV series to top the Nielsen ratings for five consecutive years.”

Yvonne Craig was known, according to her Obituary in the NYT, as the girl “who kept Gotham safe as Batgirl” whom she played in the 1960s TV series Batman. Craig was a classically trained ballerina who brought athleticism and “a scrappy girl-power element” to the series in its third and final season. However, I remember Craig as the green skinned slave girl in the “Whom The Gods Destroy” episode from the original Star Trek series. Her Obituary noted, “She performed a seductive, loose-limbed dance that seemed to nearly overwhelm William Shatner’s red-blooded Captain Kirk, while Leonard Nimoy’s Mr. Spock pronounced it “mildly interesting.””

Interestingly both of these televisions stars inform today’s compliance issue. Yorkin for the way he and his partner Lear held up a mirror, through All In The Family, to address such issues as “racism, sexism, abortion, gay rights and the war in Vietnam, among other television taboos” and Craig, “who kept Gotham safe as Batgirl.” Of course I am referring to the devastating disaster that occurred last week in the Chinese city of Tianjin. A NYT article, entitled “Report Details Role of Political Connections in Tianjin Disaster”, reported that the death toll now stands at 114, with 674 injured and more than 17,000 homes damaged. An unknown number of persons are still missing.

Is anyone really surprised corruption was involved in the tragedy? Enforcement of anti-corruption laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act or even Chinese domestic anti-bribery laws, is not a game for corruption can kill. While most corruption leads to economic damage, there have been clear instances where corruption led to the loss of life. The 2013 massacre at the Narobi Westgate shopping mall was clearly a result of corruption in Kenya that allowed guns used in the attack to be illegally smuggled into the country through bribery.

Now it has been reported that corruption led to the disaster in Tianjin. The FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “Report: Tianjin warehouse owners used guanxi to land phony safety licenses”, wrote that “The owners of the warehouse in the port of Tianjin that exploded last week and killed more than 100 people obtained fraudulent safety licenses through their connections with fire and safety officials, China state media said.” The warehouse where the fire started and spread from was illegally holding certain lethal chemicals. The post also noted, “Ruihai International Logistics owned the warehouse. The main shareholders of the company are ex-Sinochem executive Yu Xuewei and Dong Shexuan, the son of a late police chief, VAO News reported.” The FCPA Blog went on to quote the VOA report for the following, “In an interview with the official Xinhua news agency, Dong and Yu admitted to using their connections, or guanxi, with local officials to obtain various fire safety, land, environmental and safety certifications.”

In addition to the illegally stored chemicals, it turns out there should not even have been a warehouse in that location in the first place. In another NYT article, entitled “Report Details Role of Political Connections in Tianjin Disaster”, Dan Levin reported the warehouse itself was not far enough back from the prescribed distance for residential housing. It seemed clear from the confession of the Mayor of Tianjin that he had been involved in the corruption when he stated, “I bear the unshirkable responsibility for this accident as head of the city.”

Another indicia of Chinese corruption had come into play as well. The executives of the company, which owned the warehouse and illegally stored chemicals, Ruihai, hid their ownership interest. The article reported they “had other people list their shares to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

In yet another NYT article, entitled “Fear of Toxic Air and Distrust of Government Follow Explosions in China” also by Dan Levin, it was noted “Later on Tuesday, China’s anticorruption agency announced on its website that Yang Dongliang, a former deputy mayor of Tianjin who became the head of the State Administration of Work Safety, was under investigation for “suspected violations of party discipline and the law,” a common euphemism for corruption. The Beijing Youth Daily reported, however, that Mr. Yang has been under investigation for a half-year, raising questions about why the case was announced now. Two other officials accused of taking bribes are also under investigation.”

The fallout from this tragedy continues. However, with such widespread corruption many Chinese feel they are not being told the truth and that their government is protecting corrupt officials. Levin said, “Public reflection on man-made tragedies is politically risky for the ruling Communist Party, according to David Bandurski, an editor of the China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong. “The party leadership is very aware that questions of responsibility in a disaster like this can very quickly move to fundamental issues of power and legitimacy,” he said, explaining that in an authoritarian system, “the buck stops with you.” Mr. Bandurski noted that censors had struggled to control the Tianjin narrative because some Chinese journalists had pushed ahead with their own reporting. “This is a very messy story, and for Chinese media, messy means opportunity,” he said.”

The Petrobras scandal in Brazil is bringing into question the government of President Dilma, it could forebode the same in China. Corruption in all its forms is no laughing matter and enforcing anti-corruption laws is no game. While prosecuting companies engaging in bribery and corruption through the hiring of sons and daughters of government officials to retain or garner new business may seem quite a long way from the Westgate Mall massacre or the massive loss of life in Tianjin; they are clearly on a unidimensional continuum.

Just as Archie Bunker put a light up to many of the social ills of his time, the more light you can shine on corruption, the more you can root it out of the shadows. But do not forget to send in Batgirl and those fighting for justice against corruption as well.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

The Trait of Empathy in Compliance

Can you empathize with those who work for you, around you and those you report to? While many leaders, particularly those who might be labeled the ‘command and control’ type seem to think that empathy is a negative; I think that it is an important habit for any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner to not only practice but also master. Recently there were a couple of articles in the New York Times (NYT) that discussed this character trait and I found them useful to consider for the leadership toolkit of the CCO or compliance profession.

The first was by Daryl Cameron, Michael Inzlicht and William A. Cunningham, entitled “Empathy is Actually a Choice” and the second was in the Corner Office section by Adam Bryant, entitled “Is Empathy on Your Résumé?”, in which Bryant profiled Stewart Butterfield, the co-founder and chief executive of Slack, a communication service for businesses. The first piece focused on research by the authors and the second was Bryant’s weekly piece on business leadership.

The researchers noted, “While we concede the exercise of empathy is, in practice, often far too limited in scope, we dispute the idea that this shortcoming is inherent, a permanent flaw in the emotion itself…we believe that empathy is a choice that we make to extend ourselves to others. The “limits” to our empathy are merely apparent, and can change, sometimes drastically, depending on what we want to feel.” The authors ended by stating, “Arguments against empathy rely on an outdated view of emotion as a capricious beast that needs to yield to sober reason. Yes, there are many situations in which empathy appears to be limited in its scope, but this is not a deficiency in the emotion itself. In our view, empathy is only as limited as we choose it to be.”

Bryant’s article on Butterfield and his leadership style brought these concepts home. Most interestingly, Butterfield began by self-disclosing, “I’m good at the leadership part. But I’ve always said that I’m a terrible manager. I’m not good at giving feedback. People are like horses — they can smell fear. If you have a lot of apprehension going into a difficult conversation, they’ll pick up on that. And that’s going to make them nervous, and then the whole conversation is more difficult.”

Another insight on leadership was something as simple as meetings. Butterfield said that “if you’re going to call a meeting, you’re responsible for it, and you have to be clear what you want out of it. Have a synopsis and present well. At the same time, if you’re going to attend a meeting, then you owe it your full attention. And if it’s not worth your attention, then say so — but don’t be a jerk about it — and leave the meeting.” So more than simply taking responsibility for one’s own time, he put out the empathy to allow you to consider how your agenda (or lack thereof) may have negative repercussions on others on your team or in your organization.

Another interesting insight from Butterfield were his thoughts on empathy as it related to leadership. This is a sought out trait for employees, as early as in the interview process. He said, “When we talk about the qualities we want in people, empathy is a big one. If you can empathize with people, then you can do a good job. If you have no ability to empathize, then it’s difficult to give people feedback, and it’s difficult to help people improve. Everything becomes harder.”

Similarly to his examples around meetings, Butterfield believes that empathy can express itself as courtesy. He said, “One way that empathy manifests itself is courtesy. Respecting people’s time is important. Don’t let your colleagues down; if you say you’re going to do something, do it. A lot of the standard traits that you would look for in any kind of organization come down to courteousness. It’s not just about having a veneer of politeness, but actually trying to anticipate someone else’s needs and meeting them in advance.”

I found it interesting that on the same day in the same newspaper, theory not only met practice but the practice had a business application. For those out there who feel leadership skills are ingrained into your DNA, the authors pointed out “Likewise, in another recent study, the psychologists Karina Schumann, Jamil Zaki and Carol S. Dweck found that when people learned that empathy was a skill that could be improved — as opposed to a fixed personality trait — they engaged in more effort to experience empathy for racial groups other than their own. Empathy for people unlike us can be expanded, it seems, just by modifying our views about empathy.”

Yet for the CCO or compliance practitioner, Butterfield pointed out specific areas where the trait of empathy can yield great respect for you and your position in any corporation. People rarely think of courtesy and respect as leadership skills but if you can bring these to bear in your compliance practice, you can garner greater influence as not only someone who cares but someone who cares and gets things accomplished. For any corporate disciple which relies on influence to succeed these simple tools can go a long way to providing to you a wider manner to impact corporate culture, become a trusted partner and be a part of any significant business conversation earlier rather than later in the game.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Hemingway and Trust and Respect for Compliance Leadership

On this day in 1899, Ernest Hemingway was born. To me, he was the greatest Man of Letters the US has produced. Probably like most of you all, I was introduced to Hemingway in high school through The Son Also Rises. It remains my favorite of his works but I have enjoyed many more of his novels, short stories and non-fiction work. I particularly enjoyed his Nick Adams short stories as I found them crisply written and with a conciseness of language that is not often found today, or perhaps in any other time. Hemingway was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1953 and the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1954. He died via suicide in 1962.

I thought about Hemingway and his writing style when reading the most recent Corner Office column by Adam Bryant in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “To Work Here, Win the ‘Nice’ Vote”, where he profiled Peter Miller, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Optinose, a pharmaceutical company. Miller has some interesting leadership concepts that are applicable to the position of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) 2.0 and how a CCO 2.0 could use influence to lead, not only in the compliance function but also across an organization.

Miller talked about one thing you rarely hear in the corporate world, which is to be nice. He garnered this concept because as a “young sales manager at Procter & Gamble. I had five salespeople working for me, and one of the guys was 55 and another guy was 48. They were really successful salespeople, so I realized that I couldn’t teach these guys anything about selling. Since I couldn’t teach them anything, I tried to cultivate trust and respect by working really hard at figuring out how I could help them in a meaningful way.”

Yet this apparent inability to lead in precisely the area he was tasked in leading led Miller to formulate “a very important core value of mine, which is that you can and should try to create friends at your company.” But more than simply becoming friends, Miller came to the understanding that underlying the friendship “is this concept of trust and respect. When you get that as a team, that’s when great things happen. And that comes from creating a culture of openness, of authenticity, of being willing to have fearless conversations. It’s about being yourself, not being afraid to say what’s on your mind.”

As a CCO, you need to be able to have that type of conversation with those both up and down your chain of command. Certainly it is always beneficial to have type of relationship with your team that allows the full flow of communication. Miller said, “Think about how people are with their best friends. You want them to succeed. And sometimes that means having really hard conversations. If that’s what’s motivating you — and you’re really trying to help everybody around you in a company as if they were great friends of yours — that’s really powerful.”

I was interested in using some of Miller’s insights in the managing up role for any CCO. You have to be able to have some very frank conversations with your CEO and Board members about your compliance program and any issues that may arise under it. As CCO if you “cultivate trust and respect by working really hard at figuring out how I could help them in a meaningful way” as Miller used with his more senior sales team members, it should certainly help you going forward when you have to manage up your chain.

I also thought about this somewhat enlightened approach as contrasted with another style that I read about in a recent On Work column by Lucy Kellaway in the Financial Times (FT) entitled, “Wrong skillset excuse masks coup at the top of Barclays”, where she discussed the recent termination of Antony Jenkins from Barclays Bank. The newly installed chairman of the company’s Board, John McFarlane, who simultaneously promoted himself to CEO, Jenkins former position, fired Jenkins. The reason Jenkins was fired; he no longer had the right “set of skills” for the organization. Chairman McFarlane explained to Kellaway that there were four skills going forward which (apparently) were lacking in Jenkins: “a) strategic vision; b) charisma; c) the ability to put plans in place that deliver shareholder value; and d) ability to ensure results were delivered.” Ironically, Kellaway noted that lawyers for Kleiner Perkins had said that Ellen Pao “was an employee who never had a skillset.”

Kellaway noted the obvious when she wrote “To invoke skillsets in hiring is not only ugly, but dangerous. Find the right person to run a very big bank is very hard, and having a list of skills that you are matching an applicant against is not necessarily the best way of going about it.” More ominously, she noted that the head of such bank would have to be able to reign in the traders and investment banker types who brought Barclays its unwanted regulatory scrutiny. More critically from the compliance perspective, I think it says much more about Chairman McFarlane that he did not say anything about a new CEO running the business ethically, in compliance or in any other manner which could help to prevent Barclays from another very large fine or penalty from the regulators.

McFarlane’s dictum is one that will certainly be noted by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic going forward. After the disastrous run by former Barclays’ head Bob Diamond, the bank was moving in the direction of regulatory compliance while securing the profits demanded by shareholders. However, McFarlane’s sacking of Jenkins could well derail the bank’s focus on ethics and compliance and engender the former attitude which led to the bank’s fine in the LIBOR scandal.

Unlike Peter Miller at Optinose, it does not appear that Chairman McFarlane appreciates the trust and respect style of leadership. I fear things may well turn out badly for Barclay’s yet again with the newly found emphasis on profits, profits and profits.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Farewell to Moe Green and the Promise to Pay a Bribe Under the FCPA

Moe Green died again yesterday but this time he was not shot through the glasses, it was from cancer and the fictional Las Vegas mobster lived to the ripe old age of 79. Of course I am referring to “Alex Rocco, the veteran tough-guy character actor with the gravelly voice best known for playing mobster and Las Vegas casino owner Moe Greene in The Godfather”. As reported in the Hollywood Reporter, Jeffrey Dean Morgan was quoted as saying, “For those of us lucky enough to get to know Rocco, we were blessed”; “He gave the best advice, told the best and dirtiest jokes and was the first to give you a hug and kiss when it was needed. To know Roc was to love Roc. He will be missed greatly.” But it was his scream of the line, “I buy you out, you don’t buy me out!” in response to a buyout offer from Michael Corleone for which Rocco may well best be remembered in an almost 60 year acting career.

Rocco’s death and Green’s line about offers and counter-offers, with attendant promises to pay, with your life or otherwise, inform today’s blog post. Compliance practitioners will recognize that payments of bribes to foreign government officials, officials of state-owned enterprises, and certain others are illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which reads, in relevant part, that: “It shall be unlawful for any issuer which has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 78l of this title or which is required to file reports under section 78o(d) of this title, or for any officer, director, employee, or agent of such issuer or any stockholder thereof acting on behalf of such issuer, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to…”

The above is the operative prohibition from the FCPA and its violation can lead up criminal sanctions. However, most Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs), compliance practitioners and those practicing in the FCPA space have focused on all of the language except the words promise to pay. The reason would seem straightforward; not until a bribe has been paid would there be evidence sufficient to uphold sanctions under the FCPA. Yet, just as the Rosetta Stone revealed a new source of information long lost to the world, a promise to pay under the FCPA can have just as serious consequences for companies or individuals.

I thought of these issues when I read a recent article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Scandal Casts Shadow on Private Equity Firm’s Quest for a Bargain”, by frequent contributor Steven Davidoff Solomon. In his article, Solomon detailed a transaction by “Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm headed by Stephen A. Feinberg, acquired the agency’s Northern Ireland loan portfolio, which had a face value of 4.5 billion pounds (currently about $7 billion), for £1.3 billion in April 2014.”

The FCPA angle came into play because a law firm engaged by Cerberus, Northern Ireland’s Tughans, disclosed “that it had discovered that Mr. Coulter [the now former Managing Partner of Tughans] had diverted the £7 million in professional fees owed to the firm to an account in his name without the knowledge of his partners.” Further, a member of the Republic of Ireland’s parliament, Mick Wallace, “contended that £7 million was put in an offshore bank account on the Isle of Man to pay off an unidentified Irish politician or political party in connection with the Cerberus deal.” Before the money could disappear from the Isle of Man bank account Tughans retrieved it and the firm “parted ways with Mr. Coulter.” Solomon noted that at this time, “no politician has been identified as the potential beneficiary of the £7 million, though speculation is rampant. Police in Northern Ireland have opened a criminal investigation.”

According to Solomon, “Cerberus pointed out in a statement that it has not been accused of any wrongdoing and that it has “zero tolerance for inappropriate or unethical activities. We insist on the same high standards of conduct from our advisers,” it added. “In this matter, as is our standard business practice, we codified these expectations in our engagement letters with our outside advisers so that there was no room for interpretation.” It said it had received assurances from both law firms that they were in compliance with all laws and regulations.”

Henry McDonald, reporting in a The Guardian entitled “Lawyer denies bribery claim over £1bn Irish property sale”, wrote that former Tughans Managing Partner Coulter said, “denied that he or any politician had benefited financially. “The fees payable were paid into a Tughans company account supervised by the firm’s finance team,” he said. “In September 2014, a portion of the fees was retained by Tughans and I instructed Tughans’ finance director to transfer the remaining portion into an external account which was controlled only by me. Not a penny of this money was touched.” Coulter added this rather amazing statement, released through his PR firm, “he had directed the transfer of money for “a complex, commercially and legally sensitive” reason.”

If someone wanted to give a FCPA exam question, where the students had to spot the FCPA issues, this one would probably be about as good as you could dream up. But to think that a law firm’s fee would be put into a bank account in a well-known location which raises as many Red Flags as the Isle of Man, seems stretching things a bit too far. McDonald also reported that the Tughans firm “had passed all documentation relating to this to the Law Society of Northern Ireland. “The firm voluntarily brought the matter to the attention of the Law Society and will continue to cooperate with any inquiry,” it said.” He also noted that Northern Ireland officials had “called in the UK’s National Crime Agency to investigate allegations of bribery and corruption relating to the property deal.”

So what if there had been a promise to pay a bribe, but one was never paid because the money was no longer available in a separate bank account? Under the FCPA, a promise to pay is viewed with equal suspicion as the payment of a bribe. Cerberus is clearly a US entity, so the FCPA would apply. The firm’s expectations of law firms compliance with the FCPA, written into their engagement letter, coupled with the “assurances” the company received from its law firms that it was in compliance with all laws and regulations could protect the firm in a FCPA investigation. But we do have at least one person, Irish Parliament member Mick Wallace, saying the money was put into the Isle of Man bank account to pay off an Irish politician or political party. If there was a promise to pay, the result under the FCPA could be the same as if there was an illegal payment.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Channeling John Steed in Your Tone in the Middle

Today we honor a great English actor from one of the 1960s signature television series. Last week, Patrick Macnee died. He was one-half of the crime-fighting duo on The Avengers. As reported in his New York Times (NYT) obituary, “Macnee, who wielded a lethal umbrella and sharp repartee as the dapper secret agent John Steed.” In The Avengers, Macnee “faced off against an assortment of evildoers, armed with understated wit and a traditionalist British fashion sense that made him look less like a spy in the Bond mold than “a junior cabinet minister,” as he once put it, although his tightly rolled umbrella concealed a sword and other crime-fighting gadgets, and his bowler hat, lined with a steel plate, could stop bullets and, when thrown, fell an opponent.”

His initial partner was the actress Honor Blackman but after she left the series to play Pussy Galore in the James Bond film Goldfinger his more famous sidekick became “Diana Rigg, stylish in a leather cat suit and every bit his equal in the wit and hand-to-hand-combat departments. In many scenes he was content to observe, an eyebrow cocked, as Emma — whom he always referred to as Mrs. Peel — unleashed her martial arts expertise on a hapless foe. He would often summon her to action with the words “Mrs. Peel, we’re needed.” Steed carried no gun. Aplomb and sang-froid were his weapons.” He could communicate what he meant when he meant it.

I thought about Macnee, his role as Steed and, of course, Mrs. Peel when I considered how a company must communicate its message of compliance. A company must have more than simply a good ‘Tone-at-the-Top’; it must move it down through the organization from senior management to middle management and into its lower ranks. This means that one of the tasks of any company, including its compliance organization, is to get middle management to respect the stated ethics and values of a company, because if they do so, this will be communicated down through the organization.

Adam Bryant, in a NYT article, entitled “If Supervisors Respect The Values, So Will Everyone Else”, explored this topic when he interviewed Victoria Ransom, the Chief Executive of Wildfire, a company which provides social media marketing software. Ransom spoke about the role of senior management in communicating ethical values when she was quoted as saying “Another lesson I’ve learned as the company grows is that you’re only as good as the leaders you have underneath you. And that was sometimes a painful lesson. You might think that because you’re projecting our values, then the rest of the company is experiencing the values.” These senior managers communicate what the company’s ethics and values are to middle management. So while tone at the top is certainly important in setting a standard, she came to appreciate that it must move downward through the entire organization. Bryant wrote that Ransom came to realize “that the direct supervisors become the most important influence on people in the company. Therefore, a big part of leading becomes your ability to pick and guide the right people.”

Ransom said that when the company was young and small they tried to codify their company values but they did not get far in the process “because it felt forced.” As the company grew she realized that their values needed to be formalized and stated for a couple of reasons. The first was because they wanted to make it clear what was expected of everyone and “particularly because you want the new people who are also hiring to really know the values.” Another important reason was that they had to terminate “a few people because they didn’t live up to the values. If we’re going to be doing that, it’s really important to be clear about what the values are. I think that some of the biggest ways we showed that we lived up to our values were when we made tough decisions about people, especially when it was a high performer who somehow really violated our values, and we took action.” These actions to terminate had a very large effect on the workforce. Ransom said, “it made employees feel like, “Yeah, this company actually puts its money where its mouth is.””

Ransom sought to ensure that everyone knew what senior management considered when determining whether employees were “living up to the company culture.” The process started when she and her co-founder spent a weekend writing down what they believed the company’s values were. Then they sat down with the employees in small groups to elicit feedback. Her approach was to look for what they wanted in their employees. They came up with six.

• Passion: Do you really have a thirst and appetite for your work?
• Humility and Integrity: Treat your co-workers with respect and dignity.
• Courage: Speak up – if you have a great idea, tell us, and if you disagree with people in the room, speak up.
• Curiosity: They wanted folks who would constantly question and learn, not only about the company but about the industry.
• Impact: Are you having an impact at the company?
• Be outward-looking: Do good and do right by each other.

Ransom had an equally valuable insight when she talked about senior management and ethical values. She believes that “the best way to undermine a company’s values is to put people in leadership positions who are not adhering to the values. Then it completely starts to fall flat until you take action and move those people out, and then everyone gets faith in the values again. It can be restored so quickly. You just see that people are happier.”

What should the tone in the middle be? Put another way, what should middle management’s role be in the company’s compliance program? This role is critical because the majority of company employees work most directly with middle, rather than top management and, consequently, they will take their cues from how middle management will respond to a situation. Moreover, middle management must listen to the concerns of employees. Even if middle management cannot affect a direct change, it is important that employees need to have an outlet to express their concerns. Therefore your organization should train middle managers to enhance listening skills in the overall context of providing training for what she termed their ‘Manager’s Toolkit’. This can be particularly true if there is a compliance violation or other incident that requires some form of employee discipline. Ransom believes that most employees think it important that there be “organizational justice” so that people believe they will be treated fairly. Ransom further explained that without organization justice, employees typically do not understand outcomes but if there is perceived procedural fairness that an employee is more likely accept a decision that they may not like or disagree with.

So think about your lines of communication and your communication skills when conveying your message of compliance down from the top into the middle of your organization. You might even want to channel your inner John Steed, from The Avengers, in doing so.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Another Great Bassist Gone and Tone at the Bottom

 

As readers of this blog know, I am a huge fan prog rock fan. So it was with deep sadness and melancholy that I read Chris Squire passed away this weekend. He was a co-founder and bassist for the seminal rock group Yes. The band was one of founders of the musical genre known as ‘progressive rock’ or simply prog rock. According to his obituary in the New York Times (NYT) he was “the only member to have played on every one of Yes’s albums and participated in every one of its tours”. The NYT went on to say that “Mr. Squire’s propulsive and often melodic bass playing was a key element of the Yes sound. A self-taught virtuoso, he has been cited as an influence by many other rock bassists.”

I found some of the tributes from his former band mates to be the most touching and telling of Squire. Bill Bruford, the band’s original drummer, said in statement quoted in the article, “He had an approach that contrasted sharply with the somewhat monotonic, immobile bass parts of today. His lines were important; counter-melodic structural components that you were as likely to go away humming as the top line melody; little stand-alone works of art in themselves.”

Daniel Kreps, writing in Rolling Stone online, in an article entitled “Jon Anderson, Rick Wakeman Remember Yes’ Chris Squire”, quoted Yes co-founder Anderson for the following, “He was an amazingly unique bass player – very poetic – and had a wonderful knowledge of harmony. We met at a certain time when music was very open, and I feel blessed to have created some wonderful, adventurous, music with him. Chris had such a great sense of humor… he always said he was Darth Vader to my Obi-Wan. I always thought of him as Christopher Robin to my Winnie the Pooh.” Keyboardist Rick Wakeman was quoted in the same article “We have now lost, who for me, are the two greatest bass players classic rock has ever known. John Entwistle and now Chris,” Wakeman wrote. “There can hardly be a bass player worth his salt who hasn’t been influenced by one or both of these great players. Chris took the art of making a bass guitar into a lead instrument to another stratosphere and coupled with his showmanship and concern for every single note he played, made him something special.””

As most rock aficionados know, rock music is basically a dialogue between the bass guitar and the drums. With this base line set, the lead guitars and keyboards can go soaring off. That was certainly the formula for Yes. But as it really does not work unless the bass guitar lays the foundation for the entire band, I thought that a tribute to Squire might be a good way to visit one of the points of doing compliance not discussed often enough. While Tone-at-the-Top is almost ubiquitous, one thing not talked about consistently is the tone on the front lines of an organization. Even with a great ‘Tone-At-the-Top’ and in the middle, you cannot stop. One of the greatest challenges for a compliance practitioner is how to affect the ‘tone at the bottom’.

In a MIT Sloan Management Review article, entitled “Uncommon Sense: How to Turn Distinctive Beliefs Into Action”, authors Jules Goddard, Julian Birkinshaw and Tony Eccles looked at this issue when they explored the “often overlooked, critical source of differentiation is [a] company’s beliefs.”

One of the questions that the authors’ answer is: how to tap into this belief system? They posit a structured manner to obtain this information. By using these techniques, they believe that companies can rethink their “basic assumption and beliefs” and identify new directions for their organization. The authors listed seven approaches that they have used which I believe that the compliance practitioner can use to not only determine ‘Tone at the Bottom” but to impact that tone. They are as follows:

1. Assemble a group. You need to assemble a group of employees who are familiar with the challenges of doing business in a compliant manner in certain geographic regions. Include both long-time employees and those who are relatively new to the organization. The authors also suggest that if you have any employees who have worked for competitors or for other organizations in your industry you include them as well.
2. Ask questions. You should ask the members of this group to articulate their basic assumptions about your compliance model, about the management model, about your company’s business model and the future of the industry in general. Ask them to do this individually and not as a group.
3. Categorize the responses. Now comes the work by the compliance practitioner or compliance team, as the authors believe that these assumptions will usually fall into two groups. The first is assumptions that everyone agrees upon, and these are the common beliefs. The second is those assumptions that only a few of the participants will identify – this is what the authors call the “uncommon beliefs”.
4. Develop tests for common beliefs. For those beliefs that are labeled common – you should consider how you know these to be true? The authors caution that simply because the group may believe that the company operates in a common industry or that we “do it because it has always been done this way” is not necessarily a “hard fact.” Consider what check you could perform to verify the common belief that you desire to test. The authors note that the purpose here is to “identify the ‘common nonsense’ beliefs that everyone holds that are not actually hard laws of nature.”
5. Develop tests for uncommon beliefs. Here the authors suggest that you need to consider why some people think that these beliefs are true. What is the information or experience that they have drawn upon? Is there any way for you to test these uncommon beliefs?
6. Reassemble the original group. You should reassemble the original group and have them consider the beliefs that were articulated by them individually in the context of your compliance model and how both your company and your industry do business. Lead a discussion that attempts to identify any assumptions or beliefs that “are quite possibly wrong, but worth experimenting with anyway.”
7. List of Experiments to perform. The authors believe that the outcome of the first six steps will be “a list of possible experiments [tests] to conduct” to determine the validity of the common and uncommon beliefs. These tests can be accomplished in the regular course of business, through a special project with a special team and separate budget. You should agree on the testing process and review your testing assumptions throughout the process. This process can and should take some time so do not set yourself such a tight time frame that it cannot be fully matured.

The bottom line is that not only must a company ‘talk-the-talk’ of compliance but it must also ‘walk-the-walk’ of compliance. Donna Boehme says that it’s really about the culture of compliance in your organization. Put another way, as Mike Volkov said, in an article entitled “Mood in the Middle Versus Tone at the Top”, “Even when a company does all the right things at the senior management level, the real issue is whether or not that culture has embedded itself in middle and lower management. A company’s culture is reflected in the values and beliefs that exist throughout the company.” You must find a way to articulate and then drive the message of ethical values and doing business in compliance with such anti-corruption laws from the top down, throughout your organization.

So thanks for the tunes and memories Chris while I Keep Calm and Listen to Prog Rock.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Why Should Americans Care About the FIFA Indictments? Part III – Corruption and US Companies

Today, I continue my four-part series on the above question posed to me recently by a colleague. In Part I, I wrote that only the US government had the wherewithal, tools and will to do so. Yesterday, I focused on corruption on the pitch and how bribery and corruption ‘changes the game’ of soccer (AKA Football). Today is the third of my of my four reasons on why Americans should care about the Department of Justice (DOJ) bringing their indictments against the 14 named defendants who were all associated with the governing body of international soccer, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Up today is the corruption and US companies.

While there were no US companies specifically identified in the indictments, there were allegations that bribes were paid and pocketed in connection with the sponsorship of the Brazilian national soccer team by “a major U.S. sportswear company.” This company was later determined to be Nike. In an initial statement Nike denied any involvement in the payment of bribes and said they were cooperating with the relevant authorities. However, they later changed this original statement to say, “Like fans everywhere we care passionately about the game and are concerned by the very serious allegations. Nike believes in ethical and fair play in both business and sport and strongly opposes any form of manipulation or bribery. We have been cooperating, and will continue to cooperate, with the authorities.”

Nike is not alone in its World Cup sponsorship as there are numerous other American companies involved, both sportswear manufacturers and other retailers, such as those from the beverage industry. The involvement of US companies and companies subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) brings up the specter of the FCPA for companies involved in FIFA sponsorship and marketing partnerships. I do not see this as an issue so much about level playing fields for business or even the greater benefits that US companies can bring even when they are required to pay bribes. (The latter argument was used by Wal-Mart apologists around the company’s payments of bribes to do business in Mexico as benefiting the people of Mexico. Let us be quite clear-the bribes paid by Wal-Mart benefitted Wal-Mart and its income from its Mexican operations.)

Information in the indictments was quite damning about the involvement of a company identified as ‘sportswear company A or E’. In a Financial Times (FT) article, entitled “Fifa corruption scandal threatens to engulf Nike as sponsors raise pressure”, Joe Leahy and Mark Odell reported one of the cooperating defendants Jose Hawilla, owner of Traffic Group and who has pled guilty, acted as a third party agent for Nike’s landmark 1996 agreement to allow Nike to fit out the Brazilian national soccer team. Moreover, the article noted, “The prosecutors said that additional financial terms between Traffic and the unnamed sportswear company were not reflected in the CBF agreement. Under these terms, the company agreed to pay a Traffic affiliate with a Swiss bank account an additional $30m in ‘base compensation’ on top of the $160m it paid to the CBF. Three days later, the company and Traffic signed a one-page contract saying the CBF had authorized Traffic to invoice Nike directly “for marketing fees earned upon successful negotiation and performance of the agreement”. Anyone see any Red Flags in that scenario?

Beyond the criminal side of the FCPA, there is the civil side enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) through the Accounting Provisions, which consist of the books and records provisions and the internal controls provisions. According to the FCPA Guidance, “The FCPA’s accounting provisions operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions and prohibit off-the-books accounting. Company management and investors rely on a company’s financial statements and internal accounting controls to ensure transparency in the financial health of the business, the risks undertaken, and the transactions between the company and its customers and business partners. The accounting provisions are designed to “strengthen the accuracy of the corporate books and records and the reliability of the audit process which constitute the foundations of our system of corporate disclosure.””

As was made clear with the recent BHP Billiton FCPA enforcement action, violations of the accounting provisions do not apply only to brib­ery-related violations of the FCPA. The FCPA Guidance states these provisions “stand alone to help investors have assurance that all public companies account for all of their assets and liabilities accurately and in reasonable detail.” For the books and records provisions this means that US public companies must “make and keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer.” For the internal controls provisions, US public companies must provide a system of internal controls that “provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements.” In other words, the accounting provisions are designed to protect investors in addition to working towards preventing, detecting and remediating bribery and corruption.

In addition to these basic legal requirements, which are all set out in the FCPA and violation thereof could lead to criminal or civil exposure; there will be the costs. The FCPA Professor has identified “three buckets” of costs relating to an alleged FCPA violation. The first is the pre-resolution investigative and remediation costs, the second is the fine and penalty assessment and the third is the post-resolution implementation costs. It is generally recognized that buckets one and three can be up to two to six times the amount of the fine and penalty.

But with the FIFA scandal, there will be another huge factor for companies to consider and that is the negative publicity. This scandal is the largest worldwide corruption case ever brought. It is also the highest profile corruption case ever brought. It will command attention for years to come. If any US companies are linked to bribery and corruption at FIFA, their name will be dragged through the international press ad nauseum. If there are leaks about information on companies before they investigate or get out ahead of any allegations, which may spill into the press, it will certainly not look good.

For a taste of this you can look to the accounting firm KPMG, who is the auditor for FIFA. In a story originally reported by Francine McKenna at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and later reported by the New York Times (NYT), KPMG has blessed FIFA’s books since at least 1999. In the NYT piece, entitled “As FIFA case grows, focus turns to its auditors”, Lynnley Browning wrote that the KPMG audits “only heightens the puzzling disconnect between the different pictures that are emerging of FIFA as an organization: riddled with bribes and kickbacks in the view of prosecutors yet spotless according to the outsider most privy to its internal financial dealings.” How well do you think KPMG will come out of this?

The bottom line is that any US company or any other entity subject to the FCPA had better take a close look at its dealings with FIFA, regional soccer federations such as CONCACAF and national soccer federations. A full review is in order starting with who you did business with and how you did business with them. As Mike Brown would say, “follow the money” and see where it went, if you can account for it and if it was properly recorded on your company’s books and records. Finally, now would be a very propitious time to review your internal controls; for even if you had a robust paper system of internal controls like BHP Billiton did, if it is simply a check-the-box exercise or even worse you do not follow the internal compliance controls you have in place, you should begin remediation now.

As to why Americans should care about US companies engaging in corruption, that answer would seem to be straightforward. Companies which engage in bribery and corruption mislead investors and diminish the marketplace of information to base investments upon. If a company is engaging in bribery and corruption, they never report it in their books and records; they always try to hide it so that it cannot be detected. Usually poor internal controls exist, which can allow bribery and corruption to exist or even the possibility of it, once again demeaning the value of a company if that company cannot assure its investors that funds will be paid out with the approval of management. Further, contracts or other business obtained through bribery and corruption presents a false picture of the true financial health of a company as it allows profits obtained through illegal means to be booked as legitimate. Finally, if a company is engaging in bribery and corruption, the financial cost to the company can be astronomic. There is only one Wal-Mart that can sustain hundreds of millions dollars spent to investigate allegations of bribery and corruption and remediate any issues. Avon spent north of $500MM on its pre-resolution investigation and remediation. All of this does not even get to the issue of inflated stock values and the inevitable shareholder derivative litigation. Lastly, there is reputational damage. If a company is willing to engage in bribery and corruption as a part of a business strategy do you want to invest in the organization?

As an American should I care about US companies involved in the FIFA corruption scandal? If the facts reported in the FT are close to correct, I would certainly think so. If monies were paid by a ‘sportswear’ company in the form of marketing fees to Traffic or even a flat $40MM payment to a Traffic affiliates Swiss bank account, this is something which should not be tolerated.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

 

 

 

 

Do Your Executives Have (Compensation) Skin in the Game?

This year marks the 150^th anniversary of the ascent of the most famous mountain in Europe, the Matterhorn. On Bastille Day, in 1865, four British climbers and three guides were the first climbers to reach the summit. In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “In Whymper’s steps”, Edward Douglas wrote, “It was a defining moment in the history of mountaineering, arguably as pivotal as the first ascent of Everest. Before this calamity climbing was a quirky minority pastime and Zermatt an indigent and obscure village. All that changed on July 14, 1865. As locals cheerfully acknowledge, the Matterhorn disaster enthralled the public around the world and sparked an unprecedented tourist boom.”

The disaster had befallen the climbing team on its descent after having scaled the summit. The team was led by Edward Whymper. As they were coming back down, they were all tied together with rope. When one of the team slipped, he knocked over his guide and “their weight on the rope pulled off the next man…and a fourth climber as well.” Only expedition leader Whymper and two Swiss guides, a father and son duo from Zermott, survived the disaster when “they dug in and the rope tightened – then snapped – leaving them to watch in horror as the bodies of their companions cartwheeled thousands of feet down the mountain.” The depiction of the disaster by the French artist Gustave Doré captures for me the full horror of the tragedy.

Yesterday I wrote about the role of compensation in your best practices compliance program. Today I want to focus on the same issue but looking at senior management and compensation. I thought about this inter-connectedness of compensation in a compliance program, focusing up the corporate ladder when I read a recent article in the New York Times (NYT) by Gretchen Morgenson, in her Fair Game column, entitled “Ways to Put the Boss’s Skin In the Game”. Her piece dealt with a long-standing question about how to make senior executives more responsible for corporate malfeasance? Her article had some direct application to anti-corruption compliance programs such as those based on the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act. Morgenson said the issue was “Whenever a big corporation settles an enforcement matter with prosecutors, penalties levied in the case – and they can be enormous – are usually paid by the company’s shareholders. Yet the people who actually did the deeds or oversaw the operations rarely so much as open their wallets.”

She went on to explain that it is an economic phenomenon called “perverse incentive” which is one where “corporate executives are encouraged to take outsized risks because they can earn princely amounts from their actions. At the same time, they know that they rarely have to pay any fines or face other costly consequences from their actions.” To help remedy this situation, the idea has come to the fore about senior managers putting some ‘skin in the game’. Her article discussed three different sources for this initiative.

The first is a current proxy proposal in front of Citigroup shareholders which “would require that top executives at the company contribute a substantial portion of their compensation each year to a pool of money that would be available to pay penalties if legal violations were uncovered at the bank.” Further, “To ensure that the money would be available for a long enough period – investigations into wrongdoing take years to develop – the proposal would require that the executives keep their pay in the pool for 10 years.”

The second came from William Dudley, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who made a similar suggestion in a speech last fall. His proscription involved a performance bond for the actions of bank executives. Morgenson quoted Dudley from his speech, “In the case of a large fine, the senior management and material risk takes would forfeit their performance bond. Not only would this deferred debt compensation discipline individual behavior and decision-making, but it would provide strong incentives for individuals to flag issues when problems develop.”

Morgenson reported on a third approach which was delineated in an article in the Michigan State Journal of Business and Securities Law by Greg Zipes, “a trial lawyer for the Office of the United States Trustee, the nation’s watchdog over the bankruptcy system, who also teaches at the New York University School for Professional Studies.” The article is entitled, “Ties that Bind: Codes of Conduct That Require Automatic Reductions to the Pay of Directors, Officers and Their Advisors for Failures of Corporate Governance”. Zipes proposal is to create a “contract to be signed by a company’s top executives that could be enforced after a significant corporate governance failure. Executives would agree to pay back 25 percent of their gross compensation for the three years before the beginning of improprieties. The agreement would be in effect whether or not the executives knew about the misdeeds inside their company.”

As you might guess, corporate leaders are somewhat less than thrilled at the prospect of being held accountable. Zipes was cited for the following, “Corporate executives are unlikely to sign such codes of conduct of their own volition.” Indeed Citibank went so far as to petition the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “for permission to exclude the policy from its 2015 shareholder proxy.” But the SEC declined to do and at least Citibank shareholders will have the chance to vote on the proposal.

In the FCPA compliance context, these types of proposals seem to me to be exactly the type of response that a company or its Board of Directors should want to put in place. Moreover, they all have the benefit of a business solution to a legal problem. In an interview for her piece, Morgenson quoted Zipes as noting, “This idea doesn’t require regulation and its doesn’t require new laws. Executives can sign the binding code of conduct or not, but the idea is that the marketplace would reward those who do.” For those who might argue that senior executives can not or should not be responsible for the nefarious actions of other; they readily take credit for “positive corporate activities in which they had little role or knew nothing about.” Moreover, under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), corporate executives must make certain certifications about financial statement and reporting so there is currently some obligations along these lines.

Finally, perhaps shareholders will simply become tired of senior executives claiming they could not know what was happening in their businesses; have their fill of hearing about some rogue employee(s) who went off the rails by engaging in bribery and corruption to obtain or retain business; and not accept that leaders should not be held responsible.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Protections for CCOs from Wrongful Termination

This week the Houston Texans unceremoniously cut the franchise’s greatest player in its short history, receiver Andre Johnson. This was after his being hauled into the office of the head coach and being told that he would only need to work half as hard next year. As reported by Jerome Solomon in the Houston Chronicle article entitled “Move inevitable, but team bungles its handling”, Head Coach Bill O’Brien told Johnson that his catch total would drop from the 84 he has averaged in his 12 year career with the Texans down to “around 40 passes next season.” But O’Brien went on to add the team’s certain Hall of Fame receiver “wasn’t likely to be a starter next season, definitely not for all of the games.” So much for playing your best player at his position on a full-time basis, but hey, at least the information was made public.

Now imagine you are a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and have been one of your company’s senior management for the better part of the past 12 years. While you may not have been the most important member of the management team you certainly have helped navigate the company through rough compliance waters. Now imagine the company Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who tells you that although he has no one in mind to replace you (other than a less experienced and a smaller-salaried compliance specialist) your services will only be needed half the time in the coming year. What if this is in response to advice the head of the company did not like? What should the response be?

You can consider the departure from MF Global of its Chief Risk Officer, the financial services equivalent of a CCO. As reported in a New York Times (NYT) article entitled “MF Global’s Risk Officer Said to Lack Authority” Ben Protess and Azam Ahmed reported that the company replaced its Chief Risk Officer, Michael Roseman, after he “repeatedly clashed with Mr. Corzine [the CEO] over the firm’s purchase of European sovereign debt.” He was given a large severance package and left the company. When he left, there was no public reason given. His replacement was brought into the position with reduced authority.

If you are a public company, you may well need to heed the advice of fraud and compliance expert Jonathan Marks, a partner at Crowe Horwath LLP, who advocates that any time a CCO, a key executive, is dismissed it should be an 8K reporting event because the departure may be a signal of a change in the company’s attitude towards compliance or an alleged ethical breach had taken place. A similar view was expressed by Michael W. Peregrine in a NYT article entitled “Another View: MF Global’s Corporate Governance Lesson”, where he wrote that a “compliance officer is the equivalent of a “protected class” for governance purposes, and the sooner leadership gets that, the better.” Particularly in the post Sarbanes-Oxley world, a company’s CCO is a “linchpin in organizational efforts to comply with applicable law.” When a company fires (or asks him/her to resign), it is a significance decision for all involved in corporate governance and should not be solely done at the discretion of the CEO alone.

In its Code of Ethics for Compliance and Ethics Professionals, the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) has postulated Rule 1.4, which reads, “If, in the course of their work, CEPs become aware of any decision by their employing organization which, if implemented, would constitute misconduct, the professional shall: (a) refuse to consent to the decision; (b) escalate the matter, including to the highest governing body, as appropriate; (c) if serious issues remain unresolved after exercising “a” and “b”, consider resignation; and (d) report the decision to public officials when required by law.” As commentary to this rule, the SCCE said, “The duty of a compliance and ethics professional goes beyond a duty to the employing organization, inasmuch as his/her duty to the public and to the profession includes prevention of organizational misconduct. The CEP should exhaust all internal means available to deter his/her employing organization, its employees and agents from engaging in misconduct. The CEP should escalate matters to the highest governing body as appropriate, including whenever: a) directed to do so by that body, e.g., by a board resolution; b) escalation to management has proved ineffective; or c) the CEP believes escalation to management would be futile. CEPs should consider resignation only as a last resort, since CEPs may be the only remaining barrier to misconduct. A letter of resignation should set forth to senior management and the highest governing body of the employing organization in full detail and with complete candor all of the conditions that necessitate his/her action. In complex organizations, the highest governing body may be the highest governing body of a parent corporation.”

What about compensation? The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made clear that it expects a CCO to resign if the company refuses advice and violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The former head of the DOJ-FCPA unit Chuck Duross went so far as to compare CCOs and compliance practitioners to the Texans at the Alamo. To be fair to Duross, I think he was focusing more on the line in the sand part of the story, while I took that to mean they were all slaughtered for what they believed in. But whichever interpretation you may choose to put on it, the DOJ clearly expects a CCO to stand up and if a CEO does not like what they say, he or she must resign. This puts CCOs and compliance practitioners in a very difficult position, particularly if there is no exit compensation for doing the right thing by standing up.

I think the next step should be for the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to begin to discuss the need for contractual protection of CCOs and other compliance practitioners against retaliation for standing up against corruption and bribery. The standard could simply be one that protects a CCO and other compliance practitioners against termination without cause. Just as the SEC is investigating whether companies are trying to muzzle whistleblowers through post-employment Confidentiality Agreements, I think they should consider whether CCOs and other compliance practitioners need more employment protection. I think the SEC should also consider the proposals of Marks regarding the required 8K or other public reporting of the dismissal or resignation of any CCO. Finally, I would expand on Peregrine’s suggestion and require that a company Board of Directors approve any dismissal of a CCO. With these protections in place, a CCO or compliance practitioner would have the ability to confront management who might take business decisions that violate the FCPA.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

 

 

Gary Owens, Laugh-In and Accountability in Your Compliance Program

If you were alive at all during the 1960s, you will recall that one of the cultural phenomenon’s was NBC’s television show Laugh-In. It was brought to you from the NBC studios in beautiful downtown Burbank and featured one very droll player, who always played himself, Gary Owens, as the show’s announcer – Gary Owens. Owens died last week and I was surprised but pleased to learn in reading his obituary in the New York Times (NYT) that he was also the voice for several cartoon characters in the Jay Ward stable (home of Rocky and Bullwinkle) and he was the voice of Space Ghost which had a renaissance during the early years of the Cartoon Network.

I thought about Owens’ role on Laugh-In not only as the straight man but also the character, who in many ways brought accountability to the manic show when I read this week’s article by Adam Bryant in his NYT Corner Office column, entitled “Making a Habit of Accountability”, which featured his interview of Natarajan Chandrasekaran, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Tata Consulting Services. Chandrasekaran was raised on a farm and one of the things that he learned early on from his farmer father was “the value of money and the value of time. So he made us account for things. It wasn’t that there was a right or wrong way, but he wanted us to be accountable for what we did.”

I considered this concept of accountability in your best practices anti-corruption compliance program, whether based upon the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or other program. With the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recent pronouncements that it will more aggressively prosecute individuals for FCPA violations, perhaps companies should emphasize accountability more in their compliance programs. By doing so, perhaps employees might understand that there really is their personal liberty on the line when they engage in something which might even approach a FCPA violation. Further, by emphasizing personal accountability, companies could demonstrate more pro-active approaches to compliance that the DOJ wants to see going forward.

Chandrasekaran’s remarks went beyond simply emphasizing personal accountability. He also spoke about accountability in the context of a company’s overall culture. In particular I found his thoughts about accountability, learning and culture quite insightful. He said, “Learning cannot be achieved by mandate. It has to be achieved by culture.” He added, “In our executive team meetings, we share experiences and case studies about failures and successes.”

But beyond simply this insight there should also be accountability for helping others achieve the company’s overall goals. While he did not limit it to compliance, I still found it applicable to a best practice compliance regime when he said, “Everybody has to take some accountability for other people, and look for ways to make small contributions to help others. Looking after people has to become everybody’s responsibility. Innovation and caring for people are cultures; they are not departments.” He did admit that such a change would not happen overnight and indeed he has been emphasizing this message for five years at Tata because “It takes time to build that culture.”

Chandrasekaran also had an insight into compliance through his views on company structure. Tata is a flat organization, with multiple business units. He did this so the largest number of employees would feel empowered to make decisions and work collaboratively. While I recognize that such views might be antithetical to US based companies with a more ‘command and control’ approach, Chandrasekaran explained that the leaders of those units are expected “to work together. We said the power of our company will be driven by how well they work together. In some of our bigger monthly meetings, we will start with people presenting examples of their collaborations.”

I considered all of the above in the greater context of a best practices anti-corruption compliance program. One of the things that the FCPA Guidance emphasized was the inter-relatedness of each component of your compliance program. While you might have greater risk in the area of third parties or doing business in certain areas of the world where there are higher perceptions of corruption, you should not pick and choose what prongs of a compliance program you implement. Each step builds upon one another and should all point to accountability for your actions in decision-making calculus for business decisions and their implementations.

However the concept of accountability is not one that is spelled out in the FCPA Guidance or in any formulation of a best practices compliance regime. Yet it is clear that accountability is something that underlies what a compliance program is trying to achieve. Just as Chandrasekaran learned early on there is a value to things; there is a value to time and there is a value to money. So they should be accounted for in the way you do business.

This might best be described as oversight of your compliance program. The issue your company should focus on here is whether employees are accountable within the ambit of your compliance program. Even after all the important ethical messages from management have been communicated to the appropriate audiences and key standards and controls are in place, there should still be a question of whether the company’s employees are accountable to the compliance program.

Two mechanisms to do so are through the techniques of monitoring, which is a commitment to reviewing and detecting compliance programs in real time and then reacting quickly to remediate them. A primary goal of monitoring is to identify and address gaps in your program on a regular and consistent basis. A second tool is auditing, which is generally viewed as a more limited review that targets a specific business component, region or market sector during a particular timeframe in order to uncover and/or evaluate certain risks, particularly as seen in financial records. However, you should not assume that because your company conducts audits that it is effectively monitoring. A robust program should include separate functions for auditing and monitoring. While unique in protocol, however, the two functions are related and can operate in tandem. Monitoring activities can sometimes lead to audits. For instance if you notice a trend of suspicious payments in recent monitoring reports from Indonesia, it may be time to conduct an audit of those operations to further investigate the issue.

Your company should establish a regular monitoring system to hold employees accountable to doing business under your compliance regime and Code of Conduct. Effective monitoring means applying a consistent set of protocols, checks and controls tailored to your company’s risks to detect and remediate compliance problems on an ongoing basis. While it may seem that accountability means looking over every employees shoulder, it should not simply be seen as the workplace equivalent of parental oversight. Chandrasekaran explained that how you conduct yourself at work can have a huge impact on other employees. He said, “it’s sometimes very hard to imagine, early in your career, how much impact you can have. If you’re in a job and in an organization, the impact you can make is huge, because it’s all about being part of a group that’s driving impact. So look for those opportunities.” If you look for ways to demonstrate accountability you can influence a wide variety of others going forward.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015