Where to Now St. Peter? – Due Diligence Going Forward in China

Whatever you might think of where his career went, Elton John had some great early stuff. I still rank Tumbleweed Connection right up there as one of my favorite albums of all-time. And while it was packed with some great tracks, one of my most favorite was Where to Now St. Peter? It was the opening track on Side 2 and dealt with whether a dying soldier would end up in heaven or hell. While perhaps having quite the spiritual overtones, I did think about this song when I read about the convictions on Saturday of Peter William Humphrey, a 58-year-old British national, and his wife, Yu Yingzeng, a 61-year-old naturalized American, on charges of illegally purchasing personal information about Chinese nationals.

In a one day trial the couple was convicted of illegally purchasing information on Chinese citizens. In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “China court hands GSK investigator jail term and orders deportation”, Gabriel Wildau and Andrew Ward reported that husband Humphreys received a two and a half year jail term which was “just short of the three-year maximum”. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “China Convicts Two Corporate Investigators”, James T. Areddy and Laurie Burkitt reported that he was also ordered to pay a fine of approximately $32,500 and will be deported from the country when his jail term is completed. Wife Yingzeng received a two year jail term and was ordered to pay a fine of approximately $23,000 but will be allowed to remain in the country after her sentence is completed.

In a New York Times (NYT) article, entitled “In China, British Investigator Hired by Glaxo, and Wife, Sentenced to Prison”, David Barboza reported that the couple “acknowledged that from 2009 to 2013, they obtained about 250 pieces of private information about individuals, including government-issued identity documents, entry and exit travel records and mobile phone records, all apparently in violation of China’s privacy laws.” According to the NYT article, wife Yu claimed that she did not know her actions where illegal and was quoted as saying, “We did not know obtaining these pieces of information was illegal in China. If I had known I would have destroyed the evidence.” According to the WSJ, the privacy law which was the basis of the conviction, was enacted in 2009 “to make it illegal to handle certain personal medical records and telephone records” but that the law itself “remains vague” on what precisely might constitute violation.

From the court statements, however, it did appear that the couple had trafficked in personal information. As reported by the WSJ, “In separate responses over more than 10 hours, My Humphreys and Ms. Yu denied that their firm trafficked in personal information, saying they had hired others to obtain personal data when clients requested it.” From the documents presented by the prosecution, it would seem clear that the couple had obtained my items which were more personal in nature. They were alleged by prosecutors to have “used hidden cameras to gather information as well as government records on identification numbers, family members, real-estate holdings, vehicle owner, telephone logs and travel records.”

Recognizing the verdicts under Chinese laws are usually predetermined and the entire trials are scripted affairs, there is, nonetheless, important information communicated to the outside world by this trial. First and foremost is, as reported in the NYT article is a “chilling effect on companies that engage in due diligence work for global companies, many of whom believe the couple may have been unfairly targeted.” The WSJ article went further quoting Geoffrey Sant for the following, “It impacts all attempts to do business between the U.S. and China because it will be very challenging to verify the accuracy of company or personal financial information.” In other words, things just got a lot tougher to perform, what most companies would expect to be a minimum level of due diligence.

Second is the time frame noted in the court statements as to the time of the violations, from 2009 to 2013. Many had assumed that Humphreys and Yingzeng’s arrests related to their investigation work on behalf of the British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) which was trying to determine who had filmed a sex tape of the company’s head of Chinese operations, which was then provided to the company via an anonymous whistleblower. This would seem to beg the question of whether the couple would have been prosecuted if they not engaged in or accepted the GSK assignment.

But as Elton John asked, “Where to now St. Peter?” You should always remember that performing due diligence is but one of five steps in the management of the third party life cycle. If you cannot perform due diligence at a level that you do in other countries or that you could even have done in China before the Humphreys and Yu trial, you can beef up the other steps to help proactively manage your third parties. I often say that your real work with third parties begins when the contract is executed because then you have to manage the relationship going forward. So, if you cannot perform the level of due diligence you might like, you can put more resources into monitoring the relationship, particularly in the area of invoice review and payments going forward.

In a timely article found in this month’s issue of the SCCE magazine, Compliance and Ethics Professional, Dennis Haist and Caroline Lee published an article, entitled “China clamps down on bribery and corruption: Why third-party due diligence is a necessity” where they discussed a more robust response to the issue as well. They note that the retention of third party’s to do business in China is an established mechanism through which to conduct business. They advise “For multinationals with a Chinese presence, or plans to enter the market in the near future, now is the time to pay close attention to the changing nature of the business landscape as it relates to bribery and corruption.” Further, they suggest that “In order to ensure compliance with ABAC [anti-bribery/anti-corruption] regulatory scrutiny, multinationals must demonstrate a consistent, intentional and systematic approach to third-party compliance.” But in addition to the traditional background due diligence, they believe that companies should consider an approach that moves to proactively managing and monitoring third parties for compliance. Lastly, at the end of the day if a regulator comes knocking from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or Serious Fraud Office (SFO), you will need to demonstrate the steps you have put in place and your active management of the process.

In the FT, WSJ and NYT articles it was clearly pointed out that the invisible elephant in the room was GSK. Also it is not clear what the personal tragedy that Humphreys and Yu have endured will mean for GSK or the individuals caught up in that bribery scandal going forward. Humphreys had previously said that he would not have taken on the GSK sex tape assignment if it had been disclosed to him that the company had sustained allegations of corruption by an internal whistleblower. Perhaps one lesson may be that in the future companies will have to disclosure more to those they approach to perform such investigative services.

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

Nixon Announces Resignation; GSK Just Resigns

On this day, 40 years ago, President Richard Nixon announced that he would resign the Office of the President, effective the next day on August 9 at noon. I can still remember my father instructing us to watch the resignation speech on television because, as he put it, it was history in the making. Before a nationally televised address to the country, Nixon said, “By taking this action,” he said in a solemn address from the Oval Office, “I hope that I will have hastened the start of the process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.” His action was hastened along by the Articles of Impeachment voted by the House of Representatives relating to his involvement with the Watergate Affair. With his resignation, Nixon was finally bowing to pressure from the public and Congress to leave the White House.

Yet, even before this truly historic speech and spectacle the next day of Nixon helicoptering off the South Lawn of the White House, Nixon had transformed the America we all lived in. One area that resonates up to this day is his opening with China. If it had not been for Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s efforts, we might have waited a long time for an opening with China. But Nixon went there and opened China up to do business with the US and indeed the rest of the western world.

Unfortunately one of the much later fallouts from this visit and opening of China has been the corruption investigation by Chinese authorizes against western companies but most publicly the British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK). And, more unfortunately, the bad news for GSK continues to trickle out into the press.

Next week, Shanghai’s No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court is scheduled to open a trial against Peter William Humphrey, a 58-year-old British national, and his wife, Yu Yingzeng, a 61-year-old American, on charges of illegally purchasing personal information about Chinese nationals. While the trial had originally been planned to be closed to the public, last month Chinese officials announced that the trial would be ‘open’ although the degree of openness is not completely clear.

Not only will the trial be open but the couple’s son, Harvey Humphrey, was allowed visited his parents in their detention center in Pudong, Shanghai, for the first time since their arrest. The visit came after some fierce lobbying by the US and UK consulates. As reported in the online publication FiercePharma, in an article entitled “GSK private eyes’ son allowed first visit to parents in China jail as trial nears”, their son said, “They didn’t quite believe I was coming. They were quite overwhelmed. My mum was shocked. My dad held himself together,” the younger Humphrey told the paper. “It’s a bit unusual for the Chinese to do this. I feel something has changed in the Chinese approach to my parents.” Son Harvey had written to the GSK’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sir Andrew Witte last December to “take a few minutes to raise my father’s case” during a visit to the country, he told the Financial Times (FT), “I understand everything is complicated in China but it seems my parents are paying a big price”. But at this point there is no word on what if any involvement GSK might have in his parent’s defense.

It may be that GSK is way too busy right now worrying about all the other issues surrounding bribery and corruption. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “FBI, SEC Start Glaxo Inquiries Over China”, Christopher M. Matthews and Hester Plumridge reported that in late July “Glaxo received an anonymous email claiming its employees in Syria bribed doctors and pharmacists over the past five years to promote products including painkiller Panadol and toothpaste Sensodyne. The bribes took the form of cash payments, speaking fees, trips, free dinners and free samples, said the email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The email cited names and dates. Syrian health officials allegedly received bribes from Glaxo employees to fast-track registration of its Sensodyne dental products, including cash payments and a trip to a 2011 conference in Rome, the email maintains. Glaxo employees also were involved in smuggling a narcotic product from Syria into Iran, the email alleges. The product in question, pseudoephedrine, is a raw ingredient of Glaxo’s congestion medicine Actifed.”

GSK once again reiterated its previously announced position that it was firmly against the payments of bribes by its employees. In response to the allegations of bribes paid in Syria the WSJ article said, “Glaxo said it would thoroughly investigate all claims made in the Syria email, and said it has asked the sender for more information. The company said it has zero tolerance for unethical behavior, adding, “We welcome people speaking up if they have concerns about alleged misconduct.”” Too bad GSK didn’t seek more information about its Chinese operations when the company’s internal investigation came up with no evidence of bribery and corruption.

Much more problematic for GSK is the fact that both the SEC and DOJ have opened formal investigations into allegations of bribery and corruption by the company. The WSJ piece notes, “Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have been interviewing current and former GlaxoSmithKline employees in connection with bribery allegations in China, according to a person familiar with the matter, as fresh claims of corruption surfaced against Glaxo’s operations in Syria. The interviews have taken place in Washington, D.C., in the past few months and are part of a Justice Department investigation into Glaxo’s activities in China, the person added. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also is investigating the company’s business in China, according to people familiar with the matter.”

As readers of this blog will recall from previous posts, in 2012 GSK pled guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety. The press release noted that the resolution was the largest health care fraud settlement in US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company for legal violations. The criminal plea agreement also included certain non-monetary compliance commitments and certifications by GSK’s US president and Board of Directors, which specifically included an executed five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. The plea agreement and CIA included provisions which required that GSK implement and/or maintain major changes to the way it does business, including changing the way its sales force is compensated to remove compensation based on sales goals for territories, one of the driving forces behind much of the conduct at issue in the prior enforcement action. Under the CIA, GSK is required to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and long-term incentives from covered executives if they or their subordinates, engaged in significant misconduct. GSK may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and those who have left the company. Additionally, the CIA also required GSK to implement and maintain transparency in its research practices and publication policies and to follow specified policies in its contracts with various health care payors.

The importance of the CIA for this anti-corruption investigation is that it not only applied to the specific pharmaceutical regulations that GSK violated but all of the GSK compliance obligations, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In addition to requiring a full and complete compliance program, the CIA specified that the company would have a Compliance Committee, to include the Compliance Officer and other members of senior management necessary to meet the requirements of the CIA; the Compliance Committee’s job was to oversee full implementation of the CIA and all compliance functions at the company. These additional functions required a Deputy Compliance Officer for each commercial business unit, Integrity Champions within each business unit and management accountability and certifications from each business unit. Training of GSK employees was specified as a key component. Further, the CIA specifically state that all compliance obligations applied to “contractors, subcontractors, agents and other persons (including, but not limited to, third party vendors)”.

GSK is now under investigation, either internally or by anti-corruption regulators across the globe in at least four countries. Unlike other companies that have found systemic issues of bribery and corruption or systemic failures in internal controls, the allegations of bribery and corruption are not 10-15 years old. So today we commemorate Nixon’s resignation; and for GSK it may simply mean just resignation.

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

GSK Faces a Bad Day at Black Rock

One of my favorite movies is Bad Day at Black Rock. It is one of the few movies to combine elements of film noir into something approaching a traditional Western. It also attacks directly the prejudice and hate against Japanese-Americans in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. I thought about that eponymous title when I read a recent article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “GSK salesmen want ‘bribes’ reimbursed”, by reporters Patti Waldmeir and Andrew Ward.

You know it is going to be a bad day when your employees line up to testify against your company in an ongoing investigation for bribery and corruption. But those rainy day sighs can go up to the Bad Day at Black Rock level when these same employees publicly announce that the company they work for owes them for the creation of fraudulent invoices used by a business unit to fund bribery and corruption which violates not only the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act but also domestic Chinese anti-corruption laws. This happened to the UK pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) last month when it was announced that certain current employees in its China operation were petitioning the company to reimburse them for bribes they were ordered to pay by their superiors.

In their article, Waldmeir and Ward wrote “the UK pharmaceutical company at the centre of a Chinese corruption scandal, is facing protests from junior employees who say the company is refusing to reimburse them for bribes they were ordered to pay by their superiors.” While my initial thought was that these Chinese employees had quite a bit of ‘cheek’ in raising this claim, the more I read into the story, the more I think it may portend serious problems for GSK in any attempt to defend the company going forward. Waldmeir and Ward reported “some Chinese sales staff are complaining that GSK has denied bonuses, threatened dismissal or refused to reimburse them for bribes they say were sanctioned by their superiors to boost the company’s drug sales. In some cases, managers instructed them to purchase fake receipts that were used to cover up bribes paid in cash or gifts to doctors and hospitals, according to salesmen interviewed by the Financial Times.”

The article went on to highlight just how some of these fake invoices, used to gain funds from the corporate headquarters to facilitate bribery and corruption, were generated. “In some instances, managers disguised their involvement by using their personal email address to instruct staff to pay bribes and by ordering junior staff to claim on their personal expense accounts – even if the bribe was actually paid out by the manager – according to these people.” Last March, a group of current GSK employees sent a letter to the company that said, in part, ““All the expenses were approved by the company,” the group wrote in a letter to management. “The expenses were paid with our own money, and although the receipts were not compliant, it was our managers who told us to buy the fake receipts,” said one former GSK salesman.”

The article quoted that GSK said, “We have zero tolerance for unethical or illegal behaviour and anyone who conducts such behaviour has no place in our company. We believe the vast majority of our employees uphold our values and we welcome employees speaking up if they have concerns.” Talk about a ‘Speak Up’ culture at your company. Probably not exactly what the company had in mind when it invited employees to raise their concerns.

However, as damning as this is, and it would certainly appear to be quite damning, was the following revelation, which was also reported by Waldmeir and Ward, regarding witness prep during GSK’s internal investigation. They wrote, “Some staff were warned not to implicate their supervisors, according to a former salesman: “Our manager approached each person before they were questioned and asked them not to mention his name. He even prepared a story for them to tell the investigator.””

Dissecting all of the above, it would appear that GSK has several real problems on several fronts from this article. The first is that there appears to have been clear China business unit management participation in the bribery and corruption scheme. While it is still not clear whether the corporate home office was involved in the scheme, simply knew of it or choose to bury its collective head in the sand as to what was going on in China, if your in-country business unit management is involved, it is not too many steps to the corporate home office. Conversely, the question might be that if this fraud against the corporate home office was so open and obvious, why did the corporate office not detect it going forward?

Yet the real issue for the corporate office may be the information about employees being coached to hide evidence during the investigation. If such activity was limited to the ‘managers’ in the Chinese business units only, what does it say about a corporate office, which allows such witness intimidation? Think that is an investigation best practice? However, if the corporate office was involved in any way in such witness intimidation, it will bode extremely poorly in the eyes of the Chinese regulators, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which has opened an investigation into the GSK matter and probably the US Department of Justice (DOJ) as well, since GSK is still subject to the Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) it signed back in July of 2012; when it pled guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data in what the DOJ called the “largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history” according to its press release. Think witness tampering or hiding of evidence might garner the attention of the DOJ for a company already under the equivalent of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA)?

In addition to all of the above conduct, it will be interesting to see the effect of this ongoing investigation on the stock value of GSK. In a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, entitled “FCPA Hits Companies Harder if they Committed Fraud”, Sam Rubenfeld reported “A study of U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement issued by the Searle Civil Justice Institute, a research division of The Law & Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law found that public companies lost an average of 2.9% of market capitalization as a result of an investigation. But, the study found, the number masks an important distinction: Companies charged with bribery only suffered an initial 1.5% loss, while those charged with bribery and financial fraud saw a initial drop of 16.3% in market cap.” It will be interesting to see the effect the apparent fraudulent activities of GSK’s China employees will have on not only the overall penalty assessed against GSK but if there is any attendant drop in shareholder value.

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

Compliance Hiring Practices under the FCPA

Hiring practices under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) are not often given much thought or widely discussed. They have come up for discussion more recently because of the issues surrounding the hiring of sons and daughters of foreign government officials most publicized with JPMorgan Chase & Co. But numerous other company’s similar hiring practices are under regulator scrutiny. As far back as 2004, in Opinion Release 04-02, the Department of Justice (DOJ) realized this was an important part of an overall compliance program when it approved a proposed compliance program that had the following requirement:

Clearly articulated procedures which ensure that discretionary authority is not delegated to persons who the company knows have a propensity to engage in illegal or improper activities.

I thought about some of these issues when I read The Saturday Essay in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “How to Trick the Guilty and Gullible into Revealing Themselves” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, which they adapted from their most recent book Think Like a Freak. In their essay they began by comparing two diverse tactics used by King Solomon and the band Van Halen to see who might be telling the truth, or not, in a specific situation. In the oft-told tale involving King Solomon he decreed that he would split a baby and give one-half each to two women who claimed to be the mother. The true mother told him to give the baby to the other woman. King Solomon used this fact to determine which was the real mother. In the case of rock band Van Halen, they had a 53-page rider giving “point-by-point instructions” in in their touring contract. This rider had technical and security specifications for each venue the band played. It also had language in ALL CAPS that stated “M&M’s (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES).” Initially this language was derided as simply rock and roll excess to the hilt, but band member David Lee Roth explained that if he went into the dressing room and found no brown M&Ms, it signified to him that the local promoter had read the contract. If there were brown M&Ms, the band had to perform extra reviews of the stage electrical and lighting requirements.

Why is hiring so important under the FCPA? It is because hiring is important to any company’s health and reputation. At this point, until the US Supreme Court tells us that a corporation is the same as a human being, with both obligations and rights; a company is only as strong as its employees. Like most areas of FCPA compliance good hiring practices for those employees who will do business in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA are simply good business practice. Levitt and Dubner cite the following statistic, “By one industry estimate, it costs an average of roughly $4,000 to replace a single employee, and one survey of 2,5000 companies found that a single bad hire can cost more than $25,000 in lost productivity, lower morale and the like.” For one of the energy Services Company where I worked this estimate went as high as $400,000 to hire and fully train a new employee. I would add that those costs could go up significantly if a bad hire violates the FCPA.

Brooke Denihan Barrett, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Denihan Hospitality Group, interviewed in the New York Times (NYT) Corner Office column said that by the “time somebody meets me, you can assume that the skills are there. So what I interview for is fit. And I’m always very curious to know, what is it about our company that appeals to that person?” She asks specifically about culture, requesting the candidate define it and how do you think that culture is special. She also asks candidates to talk about a failure and what lessons that they learned from the experience and how they dealt with the experience. I would suggest that both of those lines of inquiries should be used when evaluating a candidate for hire.

In a completely different arena, Houston Dash General Manager (GM) Brian Ching talked about the expectations he and his club have for the female soccer players on the squad. In addition to the obvious requirement for a professional soccer player to be technically proficient in the game of soccer, the team expects each player to have significant community involvement to help develop a fan base for the club. In the player interview process, this is thoroughly explained and each prospective player is asked if they would be willing to take on this additional role. But more than simply using this Q&A as an evaluation technique, it allows the team to communicate its expectations to each potential team member.

This is something that Human Resources (HR) and others involved in the hiring process can take to heart. They should have a serious and frank discussion with all potential hires, particularly those going into senior management or FCPA-related high-risk areas. This not only allows an evaluation along the lines that Barrett uses to determine if a hire will be a cultural fit for her company but it permits a company to directly express its expectations surrounding FCPA compliance and doing business ethically if a person is hired.

Another area that is often overlooked is the reference check. Many practitioners feel that a reference is not of value because prospective candidates will only list references that they believe will provide glowing recommendations of character. This leads to a pro forma reference check. However, in an article in Harvard Business Review (HBR), entitled “Gilt Groupe’s CEO on Building a Team of A Players”, author Kevin Ryan explodes this misconception by detailing how he views the entire hiring process and specifically checking references. I would add that it could be a valuable and useful tool for you and your compliance program.

In the hiring of personnel, Ryan details the three steps his company takes: (1) Resume review; (2) In-Person interview; and (3) Reference checks. Ryan believes that resumes are good for establishing “basic qualifications for the job, but not for much else.” He believes that the primary problem with in-person interviews is that they are skewed in favor of “persons who are well spoken [or] present well.” For Ryan, the key check is through references and he says, “References are really the only way to learn these things?”

Ryan recognizes that many people believe that reference checks are not of great value because companies cannot or will not give out much more information than confirming dates of employment. However, he also believes that “the way around it is to dig up people who will speak candidly.” He also recognizes that if you only speak to the references listed on a resume or other application, you may not receive the most robust appraisal. Ryan responds that the answer is to put in the work to check out references properly. Ryan believes this is one of the key strengths of search firms and that companies should emulate this practice when it comes to reference checks.

He notes that anyone who has worked in an industry for any significant length of time will have made many connections. Invariably some of these connections will be acquainted with you or those in your current, and former, company. Ryan gave the following example: A longtime friend who was employed at another company called and said that he had been asked by his hiring partner to find out “the real story” on a hiring candidate by asking Ryan his candid opinion of the candidate. Ryan’s response was “Don’t hire him.” Lest you think that such refreshing honesty no longer exists when informal employment references are provided, you are mistaken. In my past corporate position, I was charged with performing compliance due diligence on senior executives and I spent time doing what Ryan suggested, calling acquaintances that I knew and asking such direct questions. More than 75% of the time, I got direct responses.

Ryan believes that you must invest your company in the hiring process to get the right people for your company. The same is true in compliance. You do not want people with a propensity for engaging in corrupt acts working for, or leading, your company.

The hiring of someone who will perform business activities in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA or UK Bribery Act will continue to be as much art as science because the hiring of quality employees for senior management positions is similarly situated. But that does not mean a company cannot work to not hire those persons who might have a propensity to engage in bribery and corruption if the situation presented itself. The hiring process is just one more tool that can be utilized to build an effective compliance program.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

Something is Rotten in Denmark or Is It the Banking Industry?

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” is one of the signature lines from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. I thought about that when I read a couple of recent articles in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “Questions Are Asked of Rot in Banking Culture”, by Peter Eavis and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), entitled “Lawmakers Tell Justice Dept. to Seek Swiss Banker Extraditions”, by Joel Schectman. Eavis wrote that banks have been accused of money laundering, tax dodging, market rigging and rampant risk-taking; all of which I would add could lead to potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.

Banks would seem to have a different relationship with the public than energy companies. Eavis said that the “At the heart of the issue is an inviolate social contract that bankers are supposed to honor. The government agrees to protect banks from collapse, and in return, bankers are meant to uphold the highest ethics when handling other people’s money. But when law-breaking and other missteps proliferate at banks, it is a sign that the industry has stopped cleaving to the special contract, endangering taxpayers. And bad management can be a leading indicator of future financial problems at an institution.”

But more than this ‘social contract’ is regulators. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has never been shy about enforcing the FCPA against energy companies who violate the law. “Too Big To Fail” still resonates as an excuse for regulators who didn’t regulate so that they “may find it hard to convince the public that they mean business” this time around and on this issue. Eavis noted that William C. Dudley, president of the New York Fed and Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency, have both recently spoken out about banks and their culture. But Eavis notes, “each had a reputation for being too soft on the banks.”

The regulators told Eavis that they are indeed ‘ratcheting up the pressure’ on banks. Curry was quoted as saying, “We are ratcheting up the potential consequences. This is something new.” Eavis properly asks that with some of the best legal talent money can buy for defense, who deploy strategies like refusing to turn over potential evidence to regulators” and simply having such large profits “they can easily absorb the financial penalties the government throws at them”.

Eavis notes that one continuing area of concern and an area of potential change is compensation. He states “compensation is one area where bank regulators may need to do more if they want to do more to clean up bank culture, according to critics of the industry.” This is because bank compensation practices “can reward unhealthy levels of short-term risk-taking and entice bankers into ethical lapses.”

While it is doubtful that banks would ever make changes similar to those made by GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) to move away from compensation variably based upon sales to a straight salary; Eavis reports that regulators outside the US “agreed after the crisis to overhaul bankers’ pay, in part by requiring them to wait several years before they receive all of their bonuses. The hope is that bankers will behave better if they know their employers can easily take back the deferred part of their pay.”

The problem regarding compensation in US banks is that they “are still deferring much less pay than their European peers. The Fed is in charge of regulating compensation at American banks. When asked whether the pay overhaul at American banks had gone far enough, Mr. Dudley said, “There is potential to defer more compensation for longer periods of time.””

However, banks need more than simply a change in compensation to address their cultures. It really is about ethics. Interestingly this is where ‘Too Big To Fail’ comes into play. But Eavis also writes “Some banks may be so large and complex that it would be difficult for managers to maintain a clean culture across all of their operations.” Dudley was quoted as saying, “Either the firm is not too complex, you can manage it, you do know what’s going on,” he said. “Or, if you don’t know, that’s sort of raising the question whether the firm is too complex to manage.” This means “he would not allow size or complexity to be an excuse for ethical breaches.”

Although not directed at US banks and bankers, Senators Carl Levine and John McCain, who jointly lead the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, channeled their inner Howard Sklar when they wrote a letter to the DOJ and urged them to “at least attempt” extradition proceedings against indicted Swiss bankers. They jointly said “Even if the extradition request is denied, it will inform both Switzerland and its citizens that the United States is ready to make full use of available legal tools to stop facilitation of U.S. tax evasion and hold alleged wrongdoers accountable.”

I felt the DOJ response was well reasoned when a spokesman said, “extradition proceedings would be a poor use of resources. Because aiding tax evasion is not considered a crime in Switzerland, the country is unlikely to honor U.S. extradition requests.” But John Carney, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, believes that “an extradition request from U.S. authorities would be a powerful signal”. He was quoted as saying “It’s a shot across the bow for folks who think it could never happen,” Further, “The unsettling part for a potential defendant is the request is there and if the [Swiss] government ever changes its view, it’s one step closer to actually happening.””

I have written about Bankers Behaving Badly more than once. The litany of financial crimes they have admitted to goes on almost monthly. But when the government regulators start talking about a rotten culture; that seems to take things up a notch or two. Remember, I come from Houston, which is the epicenter of FCPA enforcement. I do not remember any government official or regulator talking about “deep-seated cultural and ethical failures” at energy companies in Houston. These public comments should certainly be a wake up call for senior management at these institutions. My advice would be to get your Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) in for a meeting ASAP and while you are at it, you may want to consider hiring a Chief Ethic’s Officer 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, 2014

Who Had the Worse Day – Peyton Manning or Banks and Investment Funds?

The Seattle Seahawks gave the Denver Broncos an old-fashioned tail-whoopin’ in Super Bowl history on Sunday. I admit that I was pulling for the old guy, Peyton Manning to pull out another one but I did like Seattle, particularly getting +2.5 points. Not that they needed them and I certainly did not see such a beat down coming. Manning’s reaction was about what you might assume from a professional at this stage of his career, measured yet clearly disappointed. Yes he had a very bad day and one that he will probably rue the day for some time down the road.

But there was some other news on Monday that may cause other groups to do more than ‘rue the day’. You know when you are on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in an article about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) it has the distinct possibility to be unpleasant. The said WSJ, entitled “Probe Widens Into Dealings Between Financial Firms, Libya” by Joe Palazzolo, Michael Rothfield and Justin Baer, reported that the Justice Department has joined an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) probe into “banks, private equity funds and hedge funds that may have violated anti-bribery laws (IE. FCPA) in their dealings with Libya’s government-run investment fund.” Ominously the WSJ noted that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) participation had not been previously reported. As the DOJ generally investigates potential criminal violations of the FCPA and the SEC generally investigates the civil side of things this could be quite ominous indeed.

The firms named in the WSJ article included the following: Credit Suisse Group AG, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Société Générale SA, the private-equity firm Blackstone Group LP and hedge-fund operator Och-Ziff Capital Management Group. This is in addition to the previous announcement that Goldman-Sachs was being investigated. All of the claims relate to “investment deals made around the time of the financial crisis and afterward, these people said. In the years leading up to Libya’s 2011 revolution, Western firms—encouraged by the U.S. government—raced to attract investment money from the North African nation, which was benefiting from oil sales and recently had opened to foreign investment.”

The WSJ reported that the investigation is centering on certain third parties involved in the transactions, “At the center of the probe is a group of middlemen, known as “fixers,” operating in the Middle East, London and elsewhere, people familiar with the matter said. The fixers established connections between investment firms and individuals with ties to leaders in developing markets, including those in the Gadhafi regime.” The government is looking into these third party’s “roles in arranging deals between financial firms and Libyan officials, people familiar with the matter said. The fixers acted as placement agents, similar to those in the U.S. who have come under scrutiny for steering investments to large public retirement funds. In some cases, the sovereign-wealth-fund fixers collected a “finder’s fee”.”  It was reported that “Some of the fixers had connections to at least two of Gadhafi’s sons—primarily his second son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was most involved with the sovereign-investment fund, according to people familiar with the matter. Seif al-Islam Gadhafi was captured by rebels.” Interestingly, many of the underlying facts now being investigated came to light only after the overthrow of the Gadhafi Regime.

Further north, another group may have an occasion to rue the day. As reported in the FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “More SNC-Lavaline execs face charges in ongoing corruption probe”, two former SNC-Lavalin officials were charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) last Friday. The two men charged were Stephane Roy, a former vice-president at SNC-Lavalin, who was charged with fraud, bribing a foreign public official, and contravening a United Nations economic measures act related to Libya. Also charged was former executive vice-president Sami Abdallah Bebawi with fraud, two counts of laundering the proceeds of a crime, four counts of possession of property obtained by crime, and one count of bribing a foreign public official. These charge, added to prior charges bring the number of former SNC-Lavalin executives to four for their conduct regarding allegations of bribery and corruption in Libya. This is in addition to another two company executives who were charged for bribery and corruption regarding a company project in Bangladesh.

And finally are our friendly bankers and their continuing anti-money laundering (AML) woes. Just last week, UBS Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Sergio Ermotti, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos that it was not right to criticize bankers for criminal acts “most of the bad behavior that has landed UBS and others in hot water was caused by small groups of rogue employees and doesn’t reflect broader cultural problems in the industry.” Criticism could not come from interested stakeholders, such as stockholders, or those who had money in his bank. Indeed criticism could not even come from regulators.

Apparently some regulators take their jobs a bit more seriously than Ermotti might like. Reuters reported, in an article entitled “Bankers anxious over anti-money-laundering push to go after individuals”, that at the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association conference, John Davidson, E*Trade Financial’s global head of AML, said that the “new push by regulators and lawmakers to hold individuals, rather than just institutions, accountable for regulatory violations involving money laundering is spooking members of the U.S. financial industry.” He further said that this aggressive trend and a new vigorous AML bill, introduced in Congress by Representative Maxine Waters, entitled “Holding Individuals Accountable and Deterring Money Laundering Act”, were all “a little scary.” He found the trend towards more AML enforcement against individuals “an incredibly disturbing trend.” The reason it is so scary, an un-named top level compliance officer said, is “that compliance officers at the largest Wall Street institutions were feeling especially nervous because the power structures in those institutions sometimes did not give compliance officers enough authority to act.”

But more than compliance officers may rue the day. Jordan’s reported that the Board of Directors at financial institutions are also concerned. In article entitled “Money laundering tops boardroom concerns amid threat of criminal prosecution” it reported “concerns in boardrooms are now at an all-time high” and corporate boardrooms in some of the country’s leading banks are now sitting up and taking notice of money laundering as a concern, after the threat of criminal prosecution became something of a reality. The recently released KPMG Global Anti-Money Laundering Survey noted that 88 per cent of executives have now placed money laundering back at the head of a list of concerns addressed in their boardrooms. Brian Dilley, global head of the AML Practice at KPMG, was quoted as saying “Anti-money laundering has never been higher on senior management’s agenda, with regulatory fines now running into billions, regulatory action becoming genuinely license threatening, and criminal prosecutions of firms and individuals becoming a reality.”

So who do you think had the worse day or even couple of days?

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

Plato, Aristotle and Codes of Conduct

It was once observed that all western philosophy is but a mere footnote to the works of Plato. However others believe that his student Aristotle merits equal standing. I recently read a review of the new book by Arthur Herman “The Cave and the Light” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by reviewer Roger Kimball. In his review, Kimball said that the book seeks to “explain the metabolism of history with a single master idea: the perpetual struggle or ‘creative tension’ between the ideas of Plato – which he says emphasize the idea at the expense of the actual – and those of Aristotle, whose philosophy remains rooted in experience and everyday life.”

I thought about his dichotomy when I recently came across the Words of Wisdom (WOWLW) blog, which is penned by the Capital Markets Group of the law firm of Latham & Watkins. As stated in the FCPA Guidance, “A company’s code of conduct is often the foundation upon which an effective compliance program is built.” As the Department of Justice (DOJ) has repeatedly noted in its charging documents, the most effective codes are clear, concise, and accessible to all employees and to those conducting business on the company’s behalf. The WOWLW blog took a different tack and reviewed the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations for a Code of Conduct.

Under SEC regulations, it is a requirement under Form 10-K, Reg S-K Item 406, that a company must disclose whether it has adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to the company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, controller or persons performing similar functions. If the company has not adopted such a Code of Ethics, it must explain why not in writing. As WOWLW noted, “Unsurprisingly, almost all public companies have adopted a code of ethics within the meaning of the SEC regulations.”

The article details the required content to be found in a Code of Conduct. It said that “Item 406(b) defines a ‘code of ethics’ to mean written standards reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and promote:

• honest and ethical conduct (including matters regarding “actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships”);
• full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable public disclosure;
• compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
• prompt internal reporting of violations; and
• accountability for adherence to the code.”

This requirement also “specifically contemplates that companies may bifurcate their codes of ethics for this purpose:

• a company “may have separate codes of ethics for different types of officers”; and
• a code of ethics “may be a portion of a broader document that addresses additional topics or that applies to more persons” other than the officers required to be covered.”

The article noted that a compliant company is able to disclose its codes of conduct in one of three ways, which they stated are as follows:

• file the code as an exhibit to the Form 10-K;
• post the code on the company’s website (disclosing that fact and the web address in the Form 10-K);
• or expressly undertake in the Form 10-K to provide a free copy upon request and explain how to make a request.

Moreover, businesses which have bifurcated their codes of ethics as described above are only required to “file, post or provide the portions of a broader document that constitutes a code of ethics” and made applicable to covered officers.

The SEC also requires certain disclosures of amendments and waivers to codes of conduct. Specifically, “Item 5.05 of Form 8-K requires companies to disclose within 4 business days any amendment or waiver of the Item 406 code of ethics, either:

• via Form 8-K filing; or
• on the company’s website, so long as the company previously stated in its most recently filed Form 10-K both the company’s intention to disclose any amendment on its website and the website address (in this scenario, the information must remain posted to the website for at least 12 months, and the company must retain the information for another 5 years).”

This requirement for disclosure does not reach to “technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendments. In addition, companies must disclose amendments to or waivers of their codes of ethics only if specifically required by Item 406(b) (i.e., as one of the five subjects listed above) and applicable to the covered officers” in the company.

Interestingly, if there is an implicit waiver of a company’s Code of Conduct, it must also be reported: A waiver regarding a Code of Conduct is required “as the approval by the company of a material departure from a provision of the code of ethics. This also includes “implicit waivers,” defined under Instruction 2(ii) of Item 5.05 as a failure to act within a reasonable time after an executive officer knows of a material departure from the code of ethics. Implicit waivers, as with express waivers and amendments, require disclosure only if related to the covered officers and the provisions specifically referenced in Item 406(b). Companies may also disclose implicit waivers via website if they satisfy the requirements described above. Of course, codes of ethics sometimes describe situations where board approval is specifically contemplated, and an approval process in accordance with the provisions of the code would not constitute a “departure” that would implicate a waiver.”

In addition to the SEC disclosure requirements, both NASDAQ and NYSE listing rules require listed companies to have a code of conduct whose scope is broader that the code of ethics for the purposes of SEC reporting.

Kimball’s review of The Cave and the Light points out the ongoing tension between Plato’s spirituality and Aristotle’s pragmatism. I think the dichotomy from the FCPA Guidance and the SEC regulations, as set out by WOWLW points to a more unified thesis. Kimball ends his piece by noting that Aristotle’s sentiments are around the future and not the past. But he adds that in Plato’s allegory of the caves he noted that those who leave the cave must return. The same may be said for the Code of Conduct which the Latham & Watkins Capital Markets Group has

It was once observed that all western philosophy is but a mere footnote to the works of Plato. However others believe that his student Aristotle merits equal standing. I recently read a review of the new book by Arthur Herman “The Cave and the Light” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by reviewer Roger Kimball. In his review, Kimball said that the book seeks to “explain the metabolism of history with a single master idea: the perpetual struggle or ‘creative tension’ between the ideas of Plato – which he says emphasize the idea at the expense of the actual – and those of Aristotle, whose philosophy remains rooted in experience and everyday life.”

I thought about his dichotomy when I recently came across the Words of Wisdom (WOWLW) blog, which is penned by the Capital Markets Group of the law firm of Latham & Watkins. As stated in the FCPA Guidance, “A company’s code of conduct is often the foundation upon which an effective compliance program is built.” As the Department of Justice (DOJ) has repeatedly noted in its charging documents, the most effective codes are clear, concise, and accessible to all employees and to those conducting business on the company’s behalf. The WOWLW blog took a different tack and reviewed the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations for a Code of Conduct.

Under SEC regulations, it is a requirement under Form 10-K, Reg S-K Item 406, that a company must disclose whether it has adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to the company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, controller or persons performing similar functions. If the company has not adopted such a Code of Ethics, it must explain why not in writing. As WOWLW noted, “Unsurprisingly, almost all public companies have adopted a code of ethics within the meaning of the SEC regulations.”

The article details the required content to be found in a Code of Conduct. It said that “Item 406(b) defines a ‘code of ethics’ to mean written standards reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and promote:

• honest and ethical conduct (including matters regarding “actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships”);
• full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable public disclosure;
• compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
• prompt internal reporting of violations; and
• accountability for adherence to the code.”

This requirement also “specifically contemplates that companies may bifurcate their codes of ethics for this purpose:

• a company “may have separate codes of ethics for different types of officers”; and
• a code of ethics “may be a portion of a broader document that addresses additional topics or that applies to more persons” other than the officers required to be covered.”

The article noted that a compliant company is able to disclose its codes of conduct in one of three ways, which they stated are as follows:

• file the code as an exhibit to the Form 10-K;
• post the code on the company’s website (disclosing that fact and the web address in the Form 10-K);
• or expressly undertake in the Form 10-K to provide a free copy upon request and explain how to make a request.

Moreover, businesses which have bifurcated their codes of ethics as described above are only required to “file, post or provide the portions of a broader document that constitutes a code of ethics” and made applicable to covered officers.

The SEC also requires certain disclosures of amendments and waivers to codes of conduct. Specifically, “Item 5.05 of Form 8-K requires companies to disclose within 4 business days any amendment or waiver of the Item 406 code of ethics, either:

• via Form 8-K filing; or
• on the company’s website, so long as the company previously stated in its most recently filed Form 10-K both the company’s intention to disclose any amendment on its website and the website address (in this scenario, the information must remain posted to the website for at least 12 months, and the company must retain the information for another 5 years).”

This requirement for disclosure does not reach to “technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendments. In addition, companies must disclose amendments to or waivers of their codes of ethics only if specifically required by Item 406(b) (i.e., as one of the five subjects listed above) and applicable to the covered officers” in the company.

Interestingly, if there is an implicit waiver of a company’s Code of Conduct, it must also be reported: A waiver regarding a Code of Conduct is required “as the approval by the company of a material departure from a provision of the code of ethics. This also includes “implicit waivers,” defined under Instruction 2(ii) of Item 5.05 as a failure to act within a reasonable time after an executive officer knows of a material departure from the code of ethics. Implicit waivers, as with express waivers and amendments, require disclosure only if related to the covered officers and the provisions specifically referenced in Item 406(b). Companies may also disclose implicit waivers via website if they satisfy the requirements described above. Of course, codes of ethics sometimes describe situations where board approval is specifically contemplated, and an approval process in accordance with the provisions of the code would not constitute a “departure” that would implicate a waiver.”

In addition to the SEC disclosure requirements, both NASDAQ and NYSE listing rules require listed companies to have a code of conduct whose scope is broader that the code of ethics for the purposes of SEC reporting.

Kimball’s review of The Cave and the Light points out the ongoing tension between Plato’s spirituality and Aristotle’s pragmatism. I think the dichotomy from the FCPA Guidance and the SEC regulations, as set out by WOWLW points to a more unified thesis. Kimball ends his piece by noting that Aristotle’s sentiments are around the future and not the past. But he adds that in Plato’s allegory of the caves he noted that those who leave the cave must return. The same may be said for the Code of Conduct which the Latham & Watkins Capital Markets Group has discussed.

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

discussed.

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

What is ‘Acceptance of Responsibility’ Under the US Sentencing Guidelines?

One of the things that I am often asked is how are fines and penalties calculated for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations? The Department of Justice (DOJ)/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance has the following explanation. First, the offense level is calculated pursuant to the US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) §§2C1.1 or 2B1.1, by starting with the base offense level and increasing it as warranted by any applicable specific offense characteristics. The next reference is made to the organizational guidelines found in Chapter 8, which lay out the structure for determining the final advisory guideline fine range for organizations. The base fine itself consists “of the greater of the amount corresponding to the total offense level, calculated pursuant to the guidelines, or the pecuniary gain or loss from the offense.”

The base fine is then multiplied by “a culpability score that can either reduce the fine to as little as five percent of the base fine or increase the recommended fine to up to four times the amount of the base fine.” As described in USSG §8C2.5, this culpability score is determined by taking into account numerous factors “such as the size of the organization committing the criminal acts; the involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity by high-level personnel within the organization; and prior misconduct or obstructive behavior.” The culpability score can be reduced if the “organization had an effective preexisting compliance program to prevent violations and if the organization voluntarily disclosed the offense, cooperated in the investigation, and accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct.”

I thought about some of the basis for the calculations in the context of the ongoing reports about News Corp’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, and his remarks which were recorded in March of this year when he spoke to a group of journalists from The Sun, a News Corp entity. The FCPA Blog, in a post entitled “On secret tape, Murdoch reportedly acknowledges Fleet Street’s ‘corrupt culture‘, reported that “A covert recording from March seems to capture News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch suggesting that bribery is part of the Fleet Street culture.” The Guardian, in an article entitled “Rupert Murdoch revealed – tape exposes the media mogul’s real opinions”, detailed further excerpts from the recording by noting he was annoyed with the police who he believes are “incompetent”, additionally he was not sure that setting up the Management and Standards Committee (MSC) which performed the company’s internal investigation was a good idea and, finally, Murdoch “lays into lawyers, accusing them of getting rich by trawling through millions of emails.” Just when you think it cannot get any worse (or better – depending on your perspective) The Guardian states, “He talks of the News of the World in personal terms: “We got caught with dirty hands, I guess” before launching into a further attack on the police: “The cops are totally incompetent … It’s just disgraceful what they’re doing … It’s the biggest inquiry ever, over next-to-nothing.””

How is that for ‘tone-at-the-top’? Even the News Corp owned Wall Street Journal (WSJ), in an article entitled “Murdoch Recording Piques Interest of Police, Lawmakers”, said “Mr. Murdoch’s remarks in the meeting sharply contrast with his public contrition over the newspapers’ alleged use of illegal reporting tactics.” But more than just this general statement how would Murdoch’s statements be analyzed under the culpability score used in FCPA cases? Would an admission by Murdoch that there was a culture of bribery and corruption on Fleet Street weigh under the factor of “tolerance of criminal activity by high-level personnel within the organization”? How about the potential reduction for accepting responsibility for the criminal conduct?

Murdoch’s remarks are in stark contrast to other reports of the actions taken by News Corp. In an article in the July issue of Corporate Counsel magazine, entitled “Doubling Down”, reporter Sue Reisinger profiled News Corp General Counsel (GC) and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) Gerson Zweifach. In her article, Reisinger discussed the MSC, which led the company’s internal investigation of not only the bribery allegations but also the phone hacking scandal. It was information discovered in the course of the MSC’s internal investigation, and later turned over to the relevant government authorities, which led to many of the arrests of News Corp employees. The MSC and its work have clearly been one of the aggressive approaches taken by News Corp during the investigation. But The Guardian reported Murdoch may feel differently about such cooperation now when it stated, “He admits to a measure of panic as the reason for setting up the MSC to provide information to the police: “The police were about to invade this building … it was done to protect the business.””

Reisinger also reported that the FBI has opened its own investigation of News Corp. She also reported that the DOJ “has said that it’s examining whether the company accessed voicemails of 9/11 victims, as well as whether it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. So it is probably very helpful to News Corp that it instituted a new compliance program, based in part on the settlement of a shareholder derivative lawsuit. Reisinger said “A commitment to the program is included in the settlement document. The program seeks a more centralized approach to managing risk while still allowing for local autonomy.” Putting together a best practices compliance program during the pendency of a FCPA investigation is certainly one of the most powerful steps a company can take to help to ameliorate a potential FCPA penalty, the Parker Drilling enforcement action has certainly made that clear.

I would normally say that actions speak louder than words. But what is the DOJ to make over the taped remarks of Murdoch? The Guardian article ends with the following “But the real significance of the tape is that it reveals the true, unexpurgated Rupert Murdoch. As I have said often since the hacking scandal first broke, as the man at the top I believe he has been responsible for the journalistic culture at Wapping. This tape appears to prove my point.” I no longer think it is a question in the News Corp investigation “What did the President know and when did he know it?” If such a culture existed and the person who knew about it and tolerated it is still at the helm, does this impact the DOJ’s analysis under either the USSG or the culpability score? Further, does it matter if you belittle your own internal investigation, even up to the point where you suggest it should have never been done?

We do know that the DOJ takes quite a dim view of any company which settles and then claims that, you know we really didn’t do anything wrong. Standard Chartered shows us what the DOJ’s response was when its chairman claimed that the bank had engaged in “no wilful act to avoid sanctions; you know, mistakes are made – clerical errors” related to its myriad of conduct in doing business with Iran, in violation of US trade sanctions. The response was that two weeks later, he was required to eat those words when he “said those comments were “both legally and factually incorrect”” and retracted them. “Standard Chartered Bank unequivocally acknowledges and accepts responsibility . . . for past knowing and wilful criminal conduct in violating US economic sanctions laws and regulations”.

But that was after all a Bank which had admitted to its violations, agreed to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and to pay a large fine. Here News Corp has made no such admission or agreement. And since acceptance of responsibility is only one factor under the culpability score, perhaps News Corp can garner more credit for its cooperation and creation of a best practices compliance program. Then again perhaps it is all simply a misunderstanding. The Guardian also reported that “A statement released by Murdoch’s spokesman said: “Mr Murdoch welcomes the opportunity to return to the Select Committee and answer their questions. He looks forward to clearing up any misconceptions as soon as possible.”

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

Remedies of FCPA Violations – Lessons Learned from the Boeing 787 Lithium-ion Battery Issue

Over the past three months, the aircraft manufacturer Boeing has gone through a public relations nightmare and financial disaster over the failure of lithium-ion batteries in its new flagship aircraft, the 787. This Boeing case study can provide some interesting lessons for the compliance professional who is working under a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or Bribery Act compliance program.

One of the issues raised over this matter was the use of third party supplier and subcontractors to third party suppliers for the design and manufacturing of the batteries. As reported in a New York Times (NYT) article by James B. Stewart, entitled Japan’s Role in Making Batteries for Boeing, the construction of the batteries at issue was outsourced by Boeing to a Japanese company called GS Yuasa. Stewart’s article points out the need for close review of suppliers and what can happen if the quality does not meet the standards required for the project. In an article entitled, “Boeing and the Conduct of Due Diligence on Sub-Suppliers”, I considered the use of sub-suppliers from the anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance program perspective. In this post, I will consider Boeing’s response to the problem of the failure of the lithium-ion batteries.

In a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, entitled “How Boeing Rescued the 787”, reporter Andy Pasztor discussed the background to Boeing’s problems and the company’s response. The planes, which have been grounded since mid-January due to “The images of the burned batteries—one of which prompted an emergency landing and passenger evacuation of a Dreamliner in Japan—tarnished a plane that Boeing executives have said is key to its future.” While the company has not “disclosed the cost of the 787’s grounding, but analysts say the company could have to pay penalties to customers. The grounding also halted new Dreamliner deliveries, delaying hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.” Further, the public relations disaster was palatable.

Somewhat naively, after the initial grounding, Boeing executives “told FAA officials that a few easy changes in cockpit checklists, some enhanced battery inspections, and stepped-up surveillance of battery health during flights would be enough to solve the problem.” But that was not good enough for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood who said at “a news conference the planes wouldn’t resume flying until regulators were “1,000% sure” they were safe.” Based on this statement, it became clear to Boeing that “the FAA would insist on more extensive and time-consuming changes.”

Yet, even in the face of Secretary LaHood’s pronouncement, Boeing’s engineers were frustrated in all their attempts to determine the cause of the batteries’ failures. As reported by Pasztor, “By the end of the first week on the ground, Boeing “had 500 engineers dedicated to understanding” the complex technical issues, Mike Sinnett, the 787’s chief engineer, said last month. Their next focus was to try to pinpoint the specific cause of internal battery short circuits, and develop a targeted engineering solution. Boeing teamed up with government investigators from the U.S. and Japan, but the goal remained elusive.”

From these initial frustrations, Boeing engineers turned to the concept of a “containment box.” The containment “box serves several purposes: withstanding higher temperatures than the old design, and keeping dangerous chemicals from leaking. It also vents smoke outside the plane, and in the event of overheating automatically sucks oxygen from the battery. That is intended to snuff out any fire in a fraction of a second.”

I think that Secretary LaHood was on to something when he said that the 787 would not fly again until “regulators were “1000% sure” they were safe.” It is not simply a fix on a specific issue, although that is a part of any solution. But the solution must be reviewed with a holistic approach in mind. There must be additional protections in place so that if there is another failure, that failure will be contained. For Boeing this would prevent a replay of the scene on the Japan Airlines 787 where a fire in the lithium-ion batteries spread outside the battery itself.

From the anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance program perspective what I found interesting was the final solution which Boeing hit upon, even if forced to by Secretary LaHood. Since Boeing was not able to determine the specific cause of the lithium-ion batteries failures, it took a more systemic approach to the remedy. The company “shifted to wide-ranging internal battery fixes aimed at combating a variety of potential causes.” This is the type of response which we saw highlighted in the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance released last year. In the section on ‘Declinations’ the Guidance had information on six declinations to prosecute companies who self-disclosed FCPA violations. Two of the common factors to each declination were that (1) each company remedied the specific matter which gave rise to the FCPA violation but equally importantly (2) each company made their overall compliance program more robust.

In other words, do not simply remedy the conduct at issue; make sure you catch it quickly before it spreads. This would also equate to McNutly Maxim’s One and Two. 1-What did you do to prevent it?and 2-What did you do to detect it? Or as my process oriented wife might say, ‘you need a second set of eyes on it’ to validate the process and prevent failure in the process.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this entire Boeing 787 episode is to show the intersection of anti-corruption/anti-bribery compliance and safety. I have often pondered how closely these disciplines seem to interact and overlap. I think that this Boeing situation shows that we in compliance can learn quite a bit from our colleagues in safety.

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

Three Compliance Interviews on April 3

I attended the Dow Jones Global Compliance Symposium over the past couple of days. It was a great conference and kudos to the entire Dow Jones team for putting on a truly memorable event. Day 2 had some interesting speakers and I thought that I might highlight some of the note-worthy things that they said. I should initially note that they did not present prepared remarks but were interviewed by Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporters. Frustratingly, all three were very good at not answering some of the more pointed questions they were posed but they did have some thought-provoking answers to some of the questions posed to them.

Jeff Benjamin

Benjamin was retired and living in Cape Cod, when he was lured out of retirement to take over as the Senior Vice President (SVP) and General Counsel (GC) for Avon Products, Inc., in September of last year. He used this late entry into the company as a way not to answer questions about the ongoing investigation or the company’s amount of legal and investigative fees incurred to-date. He did answer a question generally around the company using two law firms which I found fascinating. He said that more law firms do not necessarily mean more lawyers working on an assignment or project. He said that by using two law firms, he can use “the best people in the best roles” rather than simply the best people. For all you Chief Compliance Officers (CCO’s) or GC’s out there you might want to think about that concept.

I was a bit frustrated that he was cut off when answering the question of his thoughts on what differentiated an elite compliance program from merely a functional one. The first point was that the compliance program seeks continual improvement. The second is that each of a company’s employees takes personal responsibility for establishing and retaining a culture of compliance and ethics in a company. I wish he had been able to give us the final two but he got side-tracked on another point.

I asked Benjamin the role that compliance plays in reconstituting employee morale after a catastrophic compliance failure that (apparently) occurred at Avon. Benjamin initially noted that he believes that the compliance function has a large role to play in rebuilding employee morale. He said a key for Avon was to look at the compliance failures and to use those as teaching moments for the work force. He coupled this with a very intensive construction of the compliance architecture for the company, communicated thoroughly to all employees. He ended with some out of the box thinking like bringing in Cynthia Cooper, the employee who blew the whistle at WorldCom, to speak to company employees on the need to ‘Speak Up and Speak Out’.

Gerson Zweifach

Zweifach is the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer for News Corp. He is former federal prosecutor and holds himself very much with that bearing and demeanor. He was asked about his dual roles as GC and CCO and he said that given where the company is, in the middle of a multi-jurisdiction, multi-law investigation, he believed that combining both roles was appropriate, at least for the next couple of years. He also noted that he was told by the News Corp’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) that “I don’t want this to happen again” and he took that as another reason that the roles should be combined, at least for the foreseeable future.

Zweifach said the biggest change that he had to effect on the company was to elevate problems to the corporate headquarters, if they involved “the core integrity” of the company. News Corp is a very decentralized business with assets all over the world. Prior to their current legal imbroglio, they did not handle such problems in the US but Zweifach has learned that this must be done to help ensure that the company gets a full picture of the facts as soon as possible. Further, any core integrity issue can become global very quickly so there needs to be central management of this issue as soon as possible.

As a former prosecutor and white collar defense lawyer, he was not too familiar with the concept of risk assessments as a corporate tool, so he had a fair amount to learn on the subject. But he learned something very interesting and that was simply because a business is located in a high-risk country it may not be high risk. Conversely, simply because a business is in a perceived low risk country, such as the UK, the business may be high risk. I found this to be a very interesting insight and  something that Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance practitioners could consider when doing their overall risk assessments.

Alberto Gonzales

Gonzales is the former Attorney General of the United States and is currently Of Counsel to the law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP. Gonzales spoke about the FCPA and potential change of the law. Initially he noted that reform of the FCPA in Congress is dead, although he tried to blame it on the Democratic administration, forgetting perhaps that the greatest increase in FCPA enforcement occurred while he was Attorney General (oops!). But he did say that perhaps there could be some different interpretations by regulators, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Leaving aside the subtle distinction that the DOJ are prosecutors and not regulators (oops again!) he said that he believed business groups were right to continue to clamor for additional FCPA guidance, as he clearly demeaned the November-released FCPA Guidance as “so-called guidance”.

He also said that greater transparency would be of assistance to the compliance practitioner and here he talked about further information on declinations. He said that he believed the DOJ could strip out the indemnity markers but the key information would be for the DOJ to itemize the information which went into their decision making calculus as to why a declination was granted as opposed to an enforcement action. This is certainly something that I do agree with Gonzales on.

The Dow Jones Global Compliance Symposium continues to be one of the premier compliance events annually. If you did not attend this year and can do so next year, I urge you to try and get yourself up to DC for the conference.

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