Economic Downturn Week, Part II – The Golden Gate Bridge and Employment Separation – Hotlines and Whistleblowers During Layoffs

Today, we celebrate one of the greatest engineering achievements of the century. On this date in 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge opened. At 4200 feet long, it was at the time the world’s longest suspension bridge. But not only was it an engineering and architectural milestone, its aesthetic form was instantly recognized as classical and to this day is one of the most iconic structures in the US if not the world. With just a few years until its 80^th birthday, it demonstrates that a lasting structure is more than simply form following function but contains many elements that inform its use and beauty.

I use the Golden Gate Bridge as an entrée to my continued discussion on the series on steps that you can use in your compliance program if you find yourself, your company or your industry in an economic downturn. Whether you are a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner, these steps are designed to be achieved when you face reduced economic resources or lessened personnel resources going forward due to a downturn your economic sector. Yesterday, I discussed mapping your current and existing internal controls to the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program so that you can demonstrate your compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’s (FCPA) internal control prong to the accounting procedures. Today I want to discuss the issues surrounding the inevitable layoffs your company will have to endure in a downturn.

In Houston, we have experienced energy companies laying off upwards of 30% of their workforce, both in the US and abroad. Employment separations can be one of the trickiest maneuvers to manage in the spectrum of the employment relationship. Even when an employee is aware layoffs are coming it can still be quite a shock when Human Resources (HR) shows up at their door and says, “Come with me.” However, layoffs, massive or otherwise, can present some unique challenges for the FCPA compliance practitioner. Employees can use layoffs to claim that they were retaliated against for a wide variety of complaints, including those for concerns that impact the compliance practitioner. Yet there are several actions you can take to protect your company as much as possible.

Before you begin your actual layoffs, the compliance practitioner should work with your legal department and HR function to make certain your employment separation documents are in compliance with the recent SEC v. KBR Cease and Desist Order regarding Confidentiality Agreement (CA) language which purports to prevent employees from bringing potential violations to appropriate law or regulatory enforcement officials. If your company requires employees to be presented with some type of CA to receive company approved employment severance package, it must not have language preventing an employee taking such action. But this means more than having appropriate or even approved language in your CA, as you must counsel those who will be talking to the employee being laid off, not to even hint at retaliation if they go to authorities with a good faith belief of illegal conduct. You might even suggest, adding the SEC/KBR language to your script so the person leading the conversation at the layoff can get it right and you have a documented record of what was communicated to the employee being separated.

When it comes to interacting with employees first thing any company needs to do, is to treat employees with as much respect and dignity as is possible in the situation. While every company says they care (usually the same companies which say they are very ethical), the reality is that many simply want terminated employees out the door and off the premises as quickly as possibly. At times this will include an ‘escort’ off the premises and the clear message is that not only do we not trust you but do not let the door hit you on the way out. This attitude can go a long way to starting an employee down the road of filing a claim for retaliation or, in the case of FCPA enforcement, becoming a whistleblower to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), identifying bribery and corruption.

Treating employees with respect means listening to them and not showing them the door as quickly as possible with an escort. From the FCPA compliance perspective this could also mean some type of conversation to ask the soon-to-be parting employee if they are aware of any FCPA violations, violations of your Code of Conduct or any other conduct which might raise ethical or conflict of interest concerns. You might even get them to sign some type of document that attests they are not aware of any such conduct. I recognize that this may not protect your company in all instances but at least it is some evidence that you can use later if the SEC (or Department of Justice (DOJ)) comes calling after that ex-employee has blown the whistle on your organization.

I would suggest that you work with your HR department to have an understanding of any high-risk employees who might be subject to layoffs. While you could consider having HR conduct this portion of the exit interview, it might be better if a compliance practitioner was involved. Obviously a compliance practitioner would be better able to ask detailed questions if some issue arose but it would also emphasize just how important the issue of FCPA compliance, Code of Conduct compliance or simply ethical conduct compliance was and remains to your business.

Finally are issues around hotlines, whistleblower and retaliation claims. The starting point for layoffs should be whatever your company plan is going forward. The retaliation cases turn on whether actions taken by the company were in retaliation for the hotline or whistleblower report. This means you will need to mine your hotline more closely for those employees who are scheduled or in line to be laid off. If there are such persons who have reported a FCPA, Code of Conduct or other ethical violation, you should move to triage and investigate, if appropriate, the allegation sooner rather than later. This may mean you move up research of an allegation to come to a faster resolution ahead of other claims. It may also mean you put some additional short-term resources on your hotline triage and investigations if you know layoffs are coming.

The reason for these actions are to allow you to demonstrate that any laid off employee was not separated because of a hotline or whistleblower allegation but due to your overall layoff scheme. However it could be that you may need this person to provide your compliance department additional information, to be a resource to you going forward, or even a witness that you can reasonably anticipate the government may want to interview. If any of these situations exist, if you do not plan for their eventuality before you layoff the employee, said (now) ex-employee may not be inclined to cooperate with you going forward. Also if you do demonstrate that you are sincerely interested in a meritorious hotline complaint, it may keep this person from becoming a SEC whistleblower.

Just as the Golden Gate Bridge provides more to the human condition than simply a structure to get from San Francisco to Marin County, layoffs in an economic downturn provide many opportunities to companies. If they treat the situation appropriately, it can be one where you manage your FCPA compliance risk 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

 

 

 

SEC Sanctions Company for Whistleblower Retaliation

I drove my daughter to the airport today for her summer exchange program in Spain. On the way she asked me what I was going to blog about tomorrow and I told her whistleblowers. She was not familiar with that term so I explained it to her and her response was ‘Oh you mean a snitch’ which she then followed up with ‘Dad, nobody likes a tattletale.’ I digested these cheery thoughts for a few moments and I realized if that is what a 17 year old thinks about a person who tries to inform the appropriate parties of concerns, we still have quite a ways to go in this area.

In Compliance Week, Joe Mont reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought its first enforcement action for a company’s retaliation against a whistleblower. On Monday of this week, the SEC “charged an Albany, N.Y.-based hedge fund advisory firm with engaging in prohibited transactions and then seeking retribution against the employee who reported the illicit trading activity.”

The hedge fund in question, “Paradigm Capital Management and owner Candace King Weir agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle the charges. According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Weir conducted transactions between Paradigm and a broker-dealer that she also owns while trading on behalf of a hedge fund client. Advisers are required to disclose that they are participating on both sides of the trade and must obtain the client’s consent. Paradigm also failed to provide effective written disclosure to the hedge fund and did not obtain its consent as required prior to the completion of each principal transaction. The SEC’s order adds that Paradigm’s Form ADV was materially misleading because it failed to disclose the CFO’s conflict as a member of the conflicts committee.”

Regarding the whistleblower, the SEC order reflected, “after Paradigm learned that the firm’s head trader had reported potential misconduct to the SEC, it engaged in a series of retaliatory actions that ultimately resulted in his resignation. Paradigm removed him from his head trader position, tasked him with investigating the very conduct he reported to the SEC, changed his job function from head trader to a full-time compliance assistant, stripped him of his supervisory responsibilities, and “otherwise marginalized him,” the order says.”

The Dodd-Frank Whistleblower provisions not only allowed payment of a bounty for information, which leads to a SEC enforcement action, but also protects employees from retaliation. Sean McKessy, chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower, said in a statement “For whistleblowers to come forward, they must feel assured that they’re protected from retaliation and the law is on their side should it occur. We will continue to exercise our anti-retaliation authority in these and other types of situations where a whistleblower is wrongfully targeted for doing the right thing and reporting a possible securities law violation.”

The difficulties faced by whistleblowers on Wall Street have been well documented. In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “Wall Street Whistleblowers”, William D. Cohen wrote about three such persons. Oliver Budde, a former legal advisor for Lehman Brothers, who was quoted as saying “When the tone at the top is ‘anything goes’ anything will go.” Eric Ben-Artzi, a former analyst at Deutsche Bank, who was quoted as saying “They accused me of trying to bring down the bank.” Peter Sivere, a former compliance officer at JP Morgan Chase, who was quoted as saying “I wish I had known that the house always wins.” All three men had tried to blow the whistle internally but were not only rebuffed but suffered retaliation.

For his article, Cohen interviewed the three men. He found that all of them had “made allegations of wrongdoing at their banks, made strenuous efforts to report what they had discovered through internal and external channels and all three were either fired from their jobs after trying to share the information they had stumbled upon or quit in frustration.” But, equally importantly, Cohen believes that their stories, “and the details of what happened to them are important. Not only do they illustrate the existential risks that whistleblowers take when they attempt to point out wrongdoing that they uncover at powerful institutions. They also matter because their stories show just how uninterested these institutions genuinely remain – despite the lip service of internal hotlines and support groups – in actually ferreting out bad behaviour.”

The article also quoted Jordan Thomas, a former SEC enforcement official now in private practice at the firm of Labaton Sucharow, where he heads the firm’s whistleblower practice. Thomas thinks that the anonymous reporting provisions of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower provisions will help protect whistleblowers. He said, “Essentially most whistleblower horror stories start with retaliation and to be retaliated against, you have to be known. The genius of Dodd-Frank was it created a way for people with knowledge to report without disclosing their identity to their employers or the general public. That has been a game changer because now people with knowledge are coming forward with a lot to lose, but they have a mechanism where they can report this misconduct without fear of retaliation or blacklisting.” Thomas also said “the fact that the SEC could award $14m to a single whistleblower whose identity has remained unknown, despite efforts by the media to uncover it, sends a powerful message that whistleblower identities will be protected.”

One person who is uncomfortable with this anonymous reporting is Beatrice Edwards, director of the Government Accountability Project. She pointed to a recent SEC payout to an anonymous whistleblower, where “The SEC didn’t even reveal the nature of the wrongdoing the whistleblower uncovered, so both the company’s shareholders and the public remain in the dark about what was specifically uncovered and where. All that is known is that the SEC did bring a major enforcement action against a financial institution that resulted in a large penalty and the corresponding $14m award to the whistleblower.” Edwards argued that “the SEC is a disclosure agency, so they should have to establish that [not revealing the information] is really required in order to protect the whistleblower, if they’re going to in a sense subvert their mission . . . They really are not able to justify why they are silent about the name of the company or the nature of the fraud.”

Perhaps the SEC bounty program and the Paradigm Capital Management enforcement action will change the way that company’s view and treat whistleblowers. I certainly hope so because a company’s own employees are its best source of information about what is going on inside the company. As to my daughter’s perception about whistleblowers, I asked her if her school had any type of reporting system if a student saw or was subject to inappropriate behavior. She said that you are supposed to report it to a school counselor. When I explained that was a whistleblower system she relented somewhat. But then she added, No one should rat out their friends. Just like the SEC, I guess we have a ways to go.

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

Ethical Behavior in the Navy – Lessons for the Non-Military Compliance Practitioner

What exactly is doing business in an ethical manner? I believe that the answer is different for each company. Ethical behavior can translate into doing business in a manner that does not jeopardize the safety of others and how you treat co-workers and subordinates. One of the things that I think ethical behavior entails is doing business within the rules, regulations and obligations of your business. For US companies doing business internationally, one of things this means is doing business within the parameters of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

But what if your business is named the US Navy? A recent article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Admiral at Center of Inquiry is Censured”, by reporters C. J. Chivers and Thom Shanker explored some of these issues. The article discussed the discipline action taken against “Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, who led Carrier Strike Group Three, which included the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, had been accused of using profanity in a public setting and making at least two racially insensitive comments, officials familiar with the investigation said.” The article noted that his “case arrived as a worrisomely large number of senior military officers have been investigated or fired for poor judgment, malfeasance, sexual improprieties or sexual violence over the last year.”

Further, the article reported that due to the number of such cases, the new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, sent out an internal memo to the Pentagon’s top brass, which was also provided to the NYT. In this memo, Hagel “urging a renewed “commitment to values-based ethical conduct.” Further Hagel said that “Each of us must rededicate ourselves to upholding the principles of sound leadership,” and that “Our culture must exemplify both professional excellence and ethical judgment.”

Interestingly, this discipline of Admiral Gaouette, was instituted by a compliant by Navy Captain Ronald Reis, the commander of the Stennis. Reis himself was accused of not following “normal protocols for driving the ship through busy shipping lanes, and ran a bridge in which the surface officers under his command felt tense and unable to offer their input, the officers said. Three officers and two former officers familiar with the ship’s bridge procedures said the captain tended to act alone and by eye, and not carefully track the Stennis’s position relative to other vessels in crowded seas; one of them said he tended “to fly the ship.””

Lastly, the article quoted the former officer for the following “We’re not talking about how Ron worked with the harbor pilot when docking at a pier. We’re talking about how he was driving through congested seas. People were concerned when he was driving because they were concerned he would hit something.”

According to the article, Gaouette was cleared of any criminal violations but was given a “set of administrative penalties which will effectively end his career” in the Navy as “the full inspector-general’s report was ordered to be attached to the admiral’s service record, where it will block his chances at promotion or future command, officials said.”

I recognize that most compliance practitioners do not work for the military but there are some very valuable lessons for the compliance practitioner that can be gleaned from the article.

Ethical Leadership

The few references in the NYT piece to Hagel’s internal memo are quite telling. Like most military organizations, the US Navy relies on strong discipline throughout the ranks. However, this does not mean that a senior officer can act abusively to lesser ranked officers. The article noted that “Navy officials declined to provide details, or discuss precisely what Admiral Gaouette said that Captain Reis and the inspector general deemed insensitive.” Nevertheless, whatever was said would be appear to outside what the Navy believed was tolerable. So intolerable in fact, that it ended Admiral Gaouette’s career.

Treatment of Whistleblower

It was Captain Reis who filed the complaint against Admiral Gaouette, not the other way around. The article reported that “After Admiral Gaouette had ordered the captain to slow down as the vessel was steaming through ship traffic in the Malacca Strait in excess of 20 knots, the officers said, Captain Reis filed a complaint to the inspector general, claiming the admiral was abusive.” The Navy followed through and investigated a senior officer in a situation where it appeared that the junior officer had engaged in conduct where the junior officer did not follow standard Navy protocols. In other words, the Navy did not blame the person who filed the complaint for his actions which may have even led to Admiral Gaouette’s interactions with the Captain.

Discipline

As noted, the conduct which Admiral Gaouette engaged in was so far out of line or unethical that it ended his Navy career. For any compliance program to work there must be both a carrot and a stick, meaning that violation of a company’s ethical values must be punished. In the Navy, abusing a subordinate is something that violates its standards for ethics based conduct. Nothing speaks more strongly than actions and for the Navy to discipline a senior officer in such a manner speaks directly to its commitment of “upholding the principles of sound leadership” that Hagel spoke about in his internal memo.

I found this article provided many things for the compliance practitioner to think about. It showed the Navy’s commitment to have an organization run with ethics. It may be that your company could learn something from this example.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

How Does Your Organization Treat Whistleblowers?

As almost everyone knows, Lance Armstrong spoke for the first time about his performance enhancing drug (PED) use recently on Oprah. On the first night he admitted for the first time that he used PEDs during his seven wins at the Tour De France. The title of my colleague Doug Cornelius’ piece in Compliance Building really said it all in his article “Lance Armstrong – A Lying Liar Just Like Madoff”. Cornelius said “What caught my attention about the Armstrong interview was the window into the mind of a pathological liar. Armstrong had been telling the lie over and over and over. He lied to the public. He lied to the press. He lied to cancer survivors. He lied under oath.”

One of the areas which came up for me was how the people who blew the whistle on Armstrong’s use of PEDs before his admission were treated and how Armstrong subsequently treated them. Armstrong admitted that he was a ‘bully’ to those who said, hinted, or even implied that he had taken PEDs. He attacked ex-teammates; wives of ex-teammates and even a masseur who saw him take such substances. He put on an aggressive PR campaign for the better part of the past decade, to which the wife of ex-Tour De France winner Greg LeMond said “I can’t describe to you the level of fear that he brings to a family.”

While I would hope that most American and European companies have moved past the situation where whistleblowers are ostracized or worse threatened, one can certainly remember the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) whistleblower Cheryl Eckard. A 2010 article in the Guardian by Graeme Wearden, entitled “GlaxoSmithKline whistleblower awarded $96m payout”, he reported that Eckard was fired by the company “after repeatedly complaining to GSK’s management that some drugs made at Cidra were being produced in a non-sterile environment, that the factory’s water system was contaminated with micro-organisms, and that other medicines were being made in the wrong doses.” She later was awarded $96MM as her share of the settlement of a Federal Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit. Eckard was quoted as saying, “It’s difficult to survive this financially, emotionally, you lose all your friends, because all your friends are people you have at work. You really do have to understand that it’s a very difficult process but very well worth it.”

More recently there was the example of NCR Corp., as reported in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Christopher M. Matthews and Samuel Rubenfeld, in an article entitled “NCR Investigates Alleged FCPA Violations”, who stated that NCR spokesperson Lou Casale said “While NCR has certain concerns about the veracity and accuracy of the allegations, NCR takes allegations of this sort very seriously and promptly began an internal investigation that is ongoing,” regarding whistleblowers claims of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. In a later WSJ article by Matthews, entitled “NCR Discloses SEC Subpoena Related to Whistleblower”, he reported that NCR also said “NCR has certain concerns about the motivation of the purported whistleblower and the accuracy of the allegations it received, some of which appear to be untrue.”

Lastly, is the situation of two whistleblowers from the British company EADS. As reported by Carola Hoyos in a Financial Times (FT) article, entitled “Emails tell of fears over EADS payments”, Hoyos told the story of two men who notified company officials of allegations of bribery and corruption at the company and who suffered for their actions. The first, Mike Paterson, the then financial controller for an EADS subsidiary GPT, internally reported “unexplained payments to the Cayman Island bank accounts for Simec International and Duranton International, which totaled £11.5M between 2007 and 2009.” Hoyos reported that Paterson was so marginalized in his job that he was basically twiddling his thumbs all day at work.

The second whistleblower was Ian Foxley, a retired British lieutenant-colonel, who had joined the company in the spring of 2010 stationed in Saudi Arabia, to oversee a £2M contract between the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In December 2010, Foxley discovered some of the concerns which Mike Paterson had raised. According to Hoyos, “The morning after he discovered Mr. Paterson’s concerns he assessed the emails that Mr. Paterson had told him he had written over the previous three years.” This led Foxley to flee Saudi Arabia with documents of these suspicious payments, which he has turned over to the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

What does the response of any of these three companies say about the way that it treats whistleblowers? Is it significantly different from the bullying Armstrong admitted he engaged in during his campaign to stop anyone who claimed that he was doping? While I doubt that companies will ever come to embrace whistleblowers, the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) recent FCPA Guidance stated that “An effective compliance program should include a mechanism for an organization’s employees and others to report suspected or actual misconduct or violations of the company’s policies on a confidential basis and without fear of retaliation.” However, by marginalizing, attacking or even making a whistleblower fear for their life, such actions can drive a whistleblower to go the DOJ, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or SFO. The Guidance recognized that “Assistance and information from a whistleblower who knows of possible securities law violations can be among the most powerful weapons in the law enforcement arsenal.”

So what is the compliance professional to make of the Armstrong confession and how can it be used for a compliance program? A recent White Paper, entitled “Blowing the Whistle on Workplace Misconduct”, released by the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) detailed several findings that the ERC had determined through surveys, interviews and dialogues. One of the key findings in this White Paper was that that a culture of ethics within a company does matter. Such a culture should start with a strong commitment to ethics at the top, however it is also clear that this message must be reinforced throughout all levels of management, and that employees must understand that their company has the expectation that ethical standards are vital in the business’ day-to-day operations. If employees have this understanding, they are more likely to conduct themselves with integrity and report misconduct by others when they believe senior management has a genuine and long-term commitment to ethical behavior. Additionally, those employees who report misconduct are often motivated by the belief that their reports will be properly investigated. Conversely, most employees are less concerned with the particular outcome than in knowing that their report was seriously considered.

This is the ‘Fair Process Doctrine’. This Doctrine generally recognizes that there are fair procedures, not arbitrary ones, in a process involving rights. Considerable research has shown that people are more willing to accept negative, unfavorable, and non-preferred outcomes when they are arrived at by processes and procedures that are perceived as fair. Adhering to the Fair Process Doctrine in two areas of your Compliance Program is critical for you, as a compliance specialist or for your Compliance Department, to have credibility with the rest of the workforce.

In this area is that of internal company investigations, if your employees do not believe that the investigation is fair and impartial, then it is not fair and impartial. Furthermore, those involved must have confidence that any internal investigation is treated seriously and objectively. One of the key reasons that employees will go outside of a company’s internal hotline process is because they do not believe that the process will be fair.

This fairness has several components. One would be the use of outside counsel, rather than in-house counsel, to handle the investigation. Moreover, if company uses a regular firm, it may be that other outside counsel should be brought in, particularly if regular outside counsel has created or implemented key components which are being investigated. Further, if the company’s regular outside counsel has a large amount of business with the company, then that law firm may have a very vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Lastly, the investigation may require a level of specialization which in-house or regular outside counsel does not possess.

Phrasing it in another way, Mike Volkov, writing in his blog Corruption, Crime and Compliance, in an article entitled “How to Prevent Whistleblower Complaints”, had these suggestions: (1) Listen to the Whistleblower – In dealing with a whistleblower, it is critical to listen to the whistleblowers concerns. (2) Do Not Overpromise – At the conclusion of an initial meeting with a whistleblower, the company representative should inform the whistleblower that the company will review the allegations, conduct a “preliminary” investigation and report back to the whistleblower during, or at the conclusion of, any investigation. (3) Conduct a Fair Investigation – Depending on the nature of the allegations, a follow up inquiry should be conducted. The steps taken in the investigation should be documented.

I would add that after your investigation is complete, the Fair Process Doctrine demands that any discipline must not only be administered fairly but it must be administered uniformly across the company for the violation of any compliance policy. Simply put if you are going to fire employees in South America for lying on their expense reports, you have to fire them in North America for the same offense. It cannot matter that the North American employee is a friend of yours or worse yet a ‘high producer’. Failure to administer discipline uniformly will destroy any vestige of credibility that you may have developed.

Lance Armstrong has and will continue to provide the ethics and compliance practitioner with many lessons. You can use his treatment of whistleblowers as an opportunity to review how your company treats such persons who make notifications of unethical or illegal conduct. With the increasing number of financial incentives available to persons to blow the whistle to government agencies, such as the SEC under the Dodd-Frank Act, it also makes very good business sense to do so.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Armistice Day, Remembrance Day, Veterans Day

On the 11^th minute of the 11^th day of the 11^th month in 1918, the War to End all Wars ended. While this ending did not accomplish that stated purpose, since that day we have honored all those persons who served in our Armed Forces. As you know Mary Jones has been posting for me over the past week when I had surgery and will continue to do so while am now recuperating. I wanted to thank everyone for their good wishes and I am doing as well as can be expected.

My surgery was performed on Election Day and it was not until the next day I was cognizant enough to ask a Nurse who won the election. Later that day, while still in ICU, I had an interesting conversation with another Nurse, who was from Nigeria, about our freedoms in America and that led me think about some of the things we owe all of our Veterans. I asked this Nurse what he thought about all the negative campaigning and accusations which flew back and forth; as opposed to some type of reasoned debate. He just looked at me and said “Do you know what I would have given back at home to be able to hear those things, or even say them.” The look in his eye reminded me that once again our right to vote, debate in public and otherwise engage in a free flowing dialogue about the future and destiny of our country is a freedom not held in other parts of the world, even in a country which, on paper at least, is a democracy.

I once had the rare privilege of trying a lawsuit in Hidalgo County, Texas, for 6 weeks. It was not a place friendly to defendants or corporations. One of the things I will never forget is the trial judge, Frank Evans, telling the jury panel about their rights and obligations as citizens to sit as jurors, and his comments were related to a Veteran. The Veteran was Harlon Block and he was one of the six men who raised the US Flag on Mount Suribachi on February 23, 1945. His name was enshrined outside the County Courthouse, along with the names of all other residents of Hidalgo County who have died serving our country from the Civil War to the present day. Harlon Block grew up in Weslaco, Texas, and played football at Weslaco High School. In February 1943, the entire team, consisting of 13 members, enlisted in the armed forces on the same day. Two years later, Block was one of the six men who made up one of the most iconic photos which came out of World War II and then he was killed while fighting on Iwo Jima.

The Judge who told this story was also one of those 13 boys. He told this story so that all of us might understand what it took for people to have the right to sit on a jury and judge their peers, whether in the criminal or civil context. As a trial lawyer, I think that one of our greatest freedoms is that of the Seventh Amendment which reads:

Amendment VII – Right to a jury trial

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I believe that this right to a trial by jury speaks to several rights but one of those is that, in the civil context, an aggrieved party gets to tell his or her story to an independent third party. This is a powerful catharsis for any injured person. But more than getting to simply tell their story they will be judged by a process which is fair and open, through the rules of procedure and evidence. I believe it is this concept that is important for compliance. There must be a way for persons to tell (or report) stories which concern them regarding bribery and corruption. Companies must allow employees to use a helpline, report concerns or even whistle blow internally without disparagement or attacking them in public. Because if companies do not allow such a mechanism a whistleblower can go straight to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and sign up for a bounty.

However, I think that there is another compelling reason that Amendment VII is so important and how it applies directly to compliance. I call it “the light of day”. By allowing ordinary citizens to not only see but participate in the judicial process, it gives greater credibility to the entire process itself. I still think about the scene from ‘On The Waterfront’ where Terry, played by Marlon Brando, calls out to Johnny Friendly, played by Lee J. Cobb, to tell him that where he is standing “in the light of day” is a much better place to be than hiding in the shadows. Today we call that ‘transparency’ and this is something that you must have in your compliance program. Employees must see that those who make internal whistleblower reports are not attacked, demeaned or marginalized. US society is better because of both sides of Amendment VII, those being the protection for and the participation of its citizens in the judicial process. I would posit to you that transparency extends to internal reporting systems which allow employees to express concerns regarding compliance issues without fear of retaliation.

So today I want to thank all the Veterans in my family. To my Father; to Uncle John and Uncle Alvan and to my Father-in-Law Michael Rudland, who served in the British Navy and helped keep my wife’s mother country safe for its Queen and Country. A big and most heartfelt thank you to all.

And for the rest of you, if you know a Veteran, buy them a cup of coffee today or call them up and say thanks. If you see one, tell him or her thanks. Our country just showed why it is the greatest in the world by having a free election; take some time to celebrate what the men and women in our armed forces have done for us.

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, 2012

EADS and Tales of Whistleblowers: A Compliance Nightmare?

What is a compliance professional’s worst nightmare? Last week in Episode 49 of This Week in FCPA, Howard Sklar and I speculated on why the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) would announce it was opening an investigation into the activities of the UK defense contractor, EADS. On Tuesday, in a Financial Times (FT) article, entitled “Emails tell of fears over EADS payments”, reporter Carola Hoyos identified some of the reasons that EADS may be under investigation. Hoyos reported that almost five years ago, senior executives of the company were “alerted to questionable payments made to Cayman Island bank accounts and lavish gifts given to the Saudi Arabian royal family and military…”

There were two different instances where an employee brought up these payments to senior officials in the company. Mike Patterson, a senior controller for GPT, a subsidiary of the company, was concerned about “unexplained payments to the Cayman Island bank accounts for Simec International and Duranton International, which totaled £11.5M between 2007 and 2009.” Hoyos reported that Patterson “alerted his superiors about the payments as early as 2007” regarding the payments and his concerns. Patterson continued to raise his concerns internally within the company and by 2010 he had notified EADS Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) Pedro Montoya of these concerns.

Unfortunately, it appears that no one took Patterson’s concerns very seriously. Hoyos quoted from a Patterson email he was provided, which read “I think Pedro Montoya now ignoring me is sufficient indication we are wasting our time internally. Our concern for EADS future seems to be greater than [EADS] first line managers…I need to make a decision whether I persevere internally, whilst suffering mind numbing boredom, or whether I take the statutory directors actions to the authorities.” Hoyos noted that Patterson “transferred to another role within GPT.”

It turned out that Patterson was not alone within the company in noticing red flags over these payments. Ian Foxley, a retired British lieutenant-colonel had joined the company in the spring of 2010 stationed in Saudi Arabia, to oversee a £2M contract between the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Saudi Arabian National Guard. By December of 2010, he was fleeing Saudi Arabia with “evidence of apparent irregular payments to Saudi officials.” Hoyos reported that while Foxley notes early on the suspicious payments, it was not until that someone had not only noted the same red flags but had reported them internally that he took action. The suspicious payments revolved around “bought-in services” which were payments for unexplained goods or services in a contract with a third party. Previously Patterson, in his role as financial controller, had refused to sign off on these contracts because of these “bought-in services” payments.

Although it was not clear from Hoyos article how Foxley became aware of the concerns raised by Patterson, he reported that “The morning after he discovered Mr. Patterson’s concerns he assessed the emails that Mr. Patterson had told him he had written over the previous three years.” This led to Foxley fleeing Saudi Arabia with documents of these suspicious payments. Foxley later raised his concerns “with the business secretary, the SFO and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.”

Hoyos reported that EADS “launched an internal investigation” in mid-2011 and that it is co-operating with the SFO. However, he also reminds readers that UK Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, halted a SFO investigation into corruption allegations surrounding another UK defence company BAE, in 2006. BAE later paid a fine to the US government for violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of $400M.

So what are some of the questions raised by these allegations? While not specifically stated it appears that the original whistleblower, Mike Patterson, was so marginalized in his job that he was basically twiddling his thumbs all day at work. Foxley so feared for his safety that he gave “the slip” to his employer when fleeing Saudi Arabia. What does that say about EADS and its internal whistleblower program? What about the CCO and those higher up within the company, what role did they play? Finally, what is the role of the British government, not only the MOD as a very interested party, but the party in power; will they allow the SFO to investigate these allegations? As Alice Cooper might say, “Welcome to my nightmare?”

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, 2012

Ten Compliance Issues from 2011

I have seen several lists of the Top Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) issues of 2011. Sam Rubenfeld and Chris Matthews at the Wall Street Journal’s Corruption Currents have been interviewing several of the top legal practitioners on their thoughts. The ever-present Mike Volkov has weighed in with his list and his “Person of the Year”, the Chief Compliance Officer. Howard Sklar and I even got into the video act by discussing our most significant issues in “This Week in FCPA”. So as part of the compliance commentariati, I submit, for your consideration, my Top Ten anti-corruption and anti-bribery issues over the past 12 months.

1.         Amendments to the FCPA? The Senate ended 2010 with hearings focusing on why there were not more individual prosecutions under the FCPA. In June, the House Judiciary Committee focused on ways to ease up on or gut the anti-corruption provisions of the FCPA in the name of US “competitiveness” overseas. Then in a stunning turnaround, the House Judiciary Chair asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) representative if the DOJ would support a ban on all commercial bribery, not just a ban on bribing foreign governmental officials. Then again he did say was drafting amendments to the FCPA which we haven’t heard about since the great theater in June.

2.         UK Bribery Act goes live. For many in the anglophile world, the event of the year was the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton. However, for us in the anti-corruption and anti-bribery world, it was effective date of the UK Bribery Act, July 1. While some had opined that the Bribery Act was “the FCPA on steroids” the initial prosecution under the Bribery Act was for a £500 bribe paid to a UK court clerk. Perhaps it just takes awhile for UK steroids to kick in.

 3.         Crystal Ball Reading. One does not have to read a crystal ball or tea leaves to know what should constitute a best practices compliance program. The DOJ continues to respond to calls for information by practitioners and the commentarati by providing solid information through which you can implement or enhance your compliance program. In addition to continuing to list the 12 points in a minimum best practices compliance program in each Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA)/Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) released; the DOJ has provided ‘enhanced compliance obligations’ in DPAs which provide information on evolving standards. Back in January, the DOJ provided information on areas of risk which should be assessed to inform your compliance program.

4.         Chief Compliance Officer Upgrade. With the effective changes in the federal sentencing guidelines from November, 2010 and the DOJ comments this year, it has become clear that companies must give a more prominent role to the Chief Compliance Officer and separate that function from that of the General Counsel.

5.         Investigating Private Equity. Both the DOJ and Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that they would be looking at private equity, in conjunction with anti-bribery and anti-corruption. Well known for cost reductions through cutting corporate budgets, they may become a prime and profitable set of targets for enforcement agencies.  Additionally, their unique structure of separately operating portfolio companies may greatly increase ownerships control and person risks. If you are in private equity and are reading this and have no clue what I am talking about, get on the phone to one of Howard Sklar’s recommended FCPA counsel ASAP.

6.         It Just Can’t Get any Weirder. Just when you think you have seen it all in the FCPA world, News Corp., is accused of bribing Scotland Yard to further its newspaper business and it is also alleged that a lawyer representing a US company in Mexican litigation attempts to bribe a court official to obtain a favorable ruling. Then, of course there is Olympus, which not only fires its whistle-blowing Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for questioning Red Flag payments to agents, which reveals that it has been engaged in a decade long corporate fraud. But here’s the topper in my book, someone posted a comment to my blog post about Tyson’s Foods paying bribes to the wives of Mexican food inspectors to obtain ‘favorable treatment’. She said the following “The meat being TIF-certified for export was not meat distributed to U.S. The meat was being exported to countries such as Japan and other Asian destinations.” I am sure that is of great comfort to the folks in “Japan and other Asian destinations”. Memo to Tyson: Call Gini Dietrich at Spin Sucks for some serious PR help.

7.         Plaintiff’s Bar gets that old time (FCPA) religion. The FCPA was used, in a somewhat novel manner, in three civil actions which may portend an entire new wave of private and civil FCPA litigations. In SciClone a shareholder derivative action was filed after the announcement of a FCPA investigation. During the pendency of a FCPA investigation, this civil action was settled with the company agreeing to implement a best practices compliance program. In Alba v. Alcoa a company whose employees were allegedly paid bribes (Alba) sued the alleged bribe-payor (Alcoa) for damages in driving up the costs for products sold because of the corrupt acts of Alcoa. In ICE, the Costa Rican telecom company sought to use the victim restitution component to allow it to participate in the DOJ’s FCPA settlement with Alcatel-Lucent.

8.         Rule of Law. Several DOJ prosecutions of individuals under the FCPA have brought a plethora of legal rulings to flesh out legal standards under the FCPA. In the spring, there were district court rulings on whether a state owned enterprise is covered by the FCPA and an analysis of what constitutes a state owned enterprise. These cases will probably be appealed so we may have the first US court of appeals’ interpretation of the FCPA in quite some time.

9.         Wide World of Enforcement. More countries are implementing new anti-corruption laws and more resources are being dedicated to enforcement. The US has had significant cooperation with the UK SFO and Financial Services Association (FSA) and this will increase with the go live date of the Bribery Act. However, the BRIC countries have passed, or are considering, significant anti-corruption laws. The US is starting to coordinate and share more information with these countries — China being the most significant.  For global companies, this increase will portend greater numbers of fines and penalties and will complicate international settlement efforts.

10.       Year of the FCPA Trial. This was the year that the DOJ brought out the big trial guns for three very high profile FCPA trials: the Gun Sting cases; Lindsey Manufacturing; and Haitian Telecom. The resolution results have been mixed, with convictions in Lindsey and Haitian Telecom; mistrial in the first of four Gun Sting trials and some dismissals in the second Gun Sting trial. However, the government has taken a black eye for some procedural missteps, particularly the judge throwing out the entire guilty verdict for prosecutorial misconduct in the Lindsey Mfg. case.

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, 2012

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Ed. Note-today we have a guest post from our colleague Russ Berland.

The Dodd-Frank whistleblower law enables the SEC to pay out between 10 percent and 30 percent of any recovery from a violation of a securities law to a whistleblower.  Under Dodd-Frank, a whistleblower is an eligible person who provides original information or original analysis to the SEC about a violation of federal securities laws that leads to a successful enforcement action with monetary sanctions of at least $1,000,000.  As you can imagine, there are a lot of “magic words” in this definition that courts will be sorting out for a long time.  The law also provides substantial protections for whistleblowers, including reinstatement, double back wages, attorneys fees and litigation costs.  But it is still early in the common law life of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower law and rules.  The final regulations became effective on August 12, 2011, and we are just now beginning to see case law interpreting its requirements.

One of the first issues to surface is retaliation for whistleblowing.  What if a person clearly experiences retaliation, but may not fit the legal definition of a whistleblower?   Imagine this situation:

An employee of a company discovers that the CEO is embezzling funds from the company by paying money to a firm that is solely owned by the CEO.  This employee reports his findings to the company’s president, who in turn reports it to the company’s independent directors.  The independent directors hire a prestigious law firm to investigate the alleged embezzlement. The attorneys discover that the CEO was in fact embezzling money through his solely owned vendor.  Later, the CEO stages a coup to override the independent directors.  Instead of losing his own job, the CEO fires the employee and denies severance.

In this scenario, is the fired employee — who blew the whistle on his CEO and later experienced retaliation — a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank?   One court has said “No.”  Patrick Egan sued Tradingscreen, Inc. (10-cv-08202-LBS S.D.N.Y. Sept 12, 2011) and alleged this set of facts.  But when the U.S. Court for the Southern District of New York was presented with his complaint, they said that even if everything Egan said in his complaint was taken to be true, he still could not sue as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank.

What had he done wrong?  What was his fatal flaw?  According to the Court, his mistake was that he had not reported his concerns directly to the SEC.  That was it.  Even if Egan had reported this to his management and the independent directors, believing that they would have to disclose it to the SEC, that was not enough.  Even if Egan had cooperated with the prestigious law firm in its investigation of the CEO, believing that they would have worked with the independent directors in reporting it to the SEC, that was not enough.  Even if the media became aware of the issues and through them, ultimately the SEC became aware of Egan’s concerns, that is not enough (but that’s another case –  Tides v. Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809, 815 (9^th Cir. 2011)).  Mr. Egan had to report directly to the SEC or hire a lawyer to go to them on his behalf.  When Egan could not say in his complaint that he had called the SEC, he was done: no lawsuit, no reinstatement, no double back wages, no litigation costs and no attorneys fees.

So the lesson here is simple.  If a whistleblower wants to be a “real” whistleblower under Dodd-Frank, they have to call somebody, specifically the SEC.  And in these Internet-friendly days, the SEC even has a website that Mr. Egan could use to easily file his whistleblower report with the SEC if he ever finds himself in this situation again.

Russ Berland is Of Counsel at the law firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP and can be reached at via phone at 816.691.3180 and via email at rberland@stinson.com. 

————————————————————————————————–

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. 

The BNY Whistleblower – The Dodd-Frank Clock is Running, is Your Company Ready?

The time period that an internal whistleblower must wait before he or she can bring information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower provision, is within 120 days after the information has been internally reported to the company. Is your company ready for the speed in which an internal investigation must now be completed? It is not simply that an investigation has begun, which might somehow act to stay or provide a company a safe harbor. The investigation must be completed and a decision made on whether or not to report the results, if a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is found, to the SEC. Not a decision ever to be taken lightly.

I have not been one of the corporate doomsayers in regards to the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower provisions. I generally believe that most employees do not want to report to the SEC or that they will run to the SEC to claim some far off chance at a bounty. I feel that most people take pride in their company and want it to succeed. (Of course if you fire an internal whistle-blower for blowing the whistle and then claim they were incompetent all along, well hell hath no fury like…) However, I may have to modify some of these views after reading an article in the Wednesday edition of the Wall Street Journal, entitled “Secret Informant Surfaces in BNY Currency Probe” by Carrick Mollenkamp.

In this article, Mollenkamp reported on informant Grant Wilson who, while working at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., (BNY), gathered information against his employer and provided documents to a whistleblower legal group, who then filed whistle-blower lawsuits against BNY. These lawsuits were later taken over or were used as the basis for other lawsuits filed by several states Attorneys General. Wilson’s input “culminated with the filing last week of separate civil lawsuits by the Justice Department in federal court…”

However, Wilson was no ordinary whistleblower. He was specifically recruited to be the insider and to provide such information by one Harry Markopolos, who was himself scorned by the SEC multiple times regarding his attempts to blow the whistle on Bernie Madoff to the SEC. (Think the SEC will not take him seriously the next time?) While the facts and circumstances of the various claims against BNY are very different from FCPA compliance, it does present a new twist on whistleblowing, that a person can be recruited in order to bring a civil claim. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has used confidential informants in white collar cases for some time.

However, Markopolos worked on the BNY case for several years and recruited Wilson 2 years before this last round of lawsuits were filed. The original lawsuits did not name Wilson as the whistleblower or ‘Relator’ in legal parlance. They were filed under the name of a Delaware partnership named “FX Analytics” to “provide anonymity for Wilson”. Further, the lawsuits were sealed. All total, the suits seek $2bn in from the bank and the whistleblower group can seek a share “of as much as 25% of the recovery”.

The old example of a whistleblower was generally thought to be of a disgruntled employee who had inside information or an employee who brought information to management and was terminated for their efforts. The BNY case provides a concrete example of a new type of whistleblower. Here you had an effort, for literally years, with recruitment of an employee with intimate knowledge of a company’s operations to provide ‘insider-information’. Could such an example be brought to other types of whistleblower actions and reports?

So does the BNY matter relate to Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers? It may be that such private efforts come from the civil side of the Bar, rather than direct reports to the DOJ. If your company does not perform an investigation within 120 days or more importantly, if the company does not report to the SEC within 120 days and the whistleblower does, the whistleblower can receive retroactive credit back to the original date of internal reporting. This may well be something of monetary value to a whistleblower’s group like the one which filed the lawsuit against BNY. Also, and more ominously suggested by the BNY matter, an aggressive plaintiff’s lawyer could claim that such failure get the investigation completed might be an indication of lost evidence, spoliation or simply that the company had a lack of commitment to compliance that it could not or would not dedicate the resources necessary to comply with the FCPA. The failure to report might be further evidence of nefarious intent.

So what can a company do in response? The first thing might be to determine 120 days from each internal whistleblower complaint that comes in and diary that date. The Compliance Department or Legal Department needs to respond very, very quickly to any allegations. In an article by Paul Koepp, entitled “Whistle-Blower Cases May Jump with New SEC Rules BIG Bounties”, he interviewed Russ Berland and Brian O’Bleness, of the law firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP which has set up a Whistle-Blower Investigation and Response Team. Their response team is designed to bring in outside professional resources, to supplement those a company might (or might not) have available in-house, to meet these time sensitive deadlines under Dodd-Frank. This is a step beyond what Jim McGrath writes about regarding the need to bring specialized investigative counsel in to handle a matter. Your company needs specialized counsel and a response team ready to go. Stinson Morrison’s creation of such a team may well fill that need.

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, 2011