Now suppose you are in management, though not in the Houston Astros where you are implementing a strategy to set the all-time season record for losses, but a successful compliance program. How can you go about it? While most companies have compliance programs, they do not have a compliance strategy. To endure, a compliance strategy must address the interests of all stakeholders: investors, employees, customers, governments, NGOs, and society at large. A compliance strategy should increase shareholder value while at the same time improve the firm’s performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. These concepts were recently explored in an article on sustainability in the May issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), article entitled “The Performance Frontier”. I found the concepts that the authors Robert G. Eccles and George Serafeim put forth, translate into the compliance arena as well.

The basic posit is that corporate investments in compliance do not necessarily require trade-offs in financial performance. Instead, if a company will focus on the issues that are the most relevant to both risk and shareholder value, a company should be able to boost both financial value and compliance performance. The authors believe that to do so, companies should focus on four areas.

1.      Identify Material Compliance Issues

While the overall list of compliance issues may be long and broad, the key is to determine the material issues to your company. In the context of sustainability, the authors suggest you can use a “Which Issues Matter Most” data map. They also phrased it in another manner by stating, “Evidence of economic impact is determined by evaluating both anecdotal reports and quantitative studies to gauge whether management (or mismanagement) of the issue will affect traditional corporate valuation parameters: revenue growth, return on capital, risk management, and management quality.” In the compliance arena, this would correspond to a risk assessment.

2.      Quantify the Relationship Between Financial and Compliance Performance

After you understand your company’s material compliance issues, assess the impact that improvements in each would have on financial performance. Compliance performance has many dimensions and depending on the company’s compliance strategy and the issue being considered, the most important dimension could be cost reduction, revenue growth, or gross margin defense. In the sustainability area, the authors state that a “host of factors complicate evaluations of the relationship between ESG and financial performance. Not the least of them are limitations on the ability to precisely measure ESG performance—a challenge that SASB and others are working to address.” However, even with this difficulty, I believe that a company can make an informed estimate of the slope of the performance-frontier curve for any pair of compliance and financial variables by determining whether each incremental improvement in compliance performance causes a corresponding positive or negative change in financial results – or has no impact.

3.      Innovate Products, Processes and Business Models

As with any strategy, it should be informed by your analysis. Once you determine the compliance issues to focus on, you should benchmark your industry peers on these issues. If your company’s performance falls short of industry benchmarks in a particular risk parameter, getting it up above par is the first priority. Within the sustainability context, the authors state that “At the very least it will mitigate your risks, since stakeholders tend to focus on industry laggards in campaigns aimed at increasing corporate ESG performance. Many improvements, such as reducing manufacturing waste, involve minor or moderate innovations that can enhance efficiency and, therefore, financial performance. Those sorts of innovations are increasingly necessary (but not sufficient) to ensure competitiveness.”

In the compliance arena, there are many resources available to you for benchmarking. The first place to start is the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Guidance released last November. The “Hallmarks of Effective Compliance Programs” set forth in the Guidance is an excellent compilation of where we are and what you need in place to go forward. I recommend this as a good a starting point to evaluate the state of an ongoing compliance regime so assess your company’s risks and use these hallmarks as a basis to move forward.

4.      Communicate the Company’s Innovations to Stakeholders

This may be one area of a typical compliance strategy that a company does not normally take into account. A company’s compliance function cannot assume that shareholders and other stakeholders will understand how its innovations have improved both compliance and financial performance – and how the two interrelate – unless such information is communicated effectively. As the authors state in the framework of sustainability “This is more than a matter of public relations; major innovations often require substantial investments whose benefits will not be seen for years to come. If a company expects shareholders to commit for the long term in order to receive those benefits, it needs to provide them with information that justifies their investments.” The authors call this “integrated reporting” and I believe that this is also true in the area of compliance.

As a communications tool, integrated reporting involves more than posting a PDF version of the Code of Conduct on a company’s website. As with almost all reporting, the most effective reporting is as much about listening as talking, and it serves as a key platform for stakeholder engagement. The authors believe that integrated reporting is a “way to establish a conversation that considers a company’s performance in a holistic way, identifies the tough trade-offs, and builds a case for innovation and the benefits it can generate. This engagement is also central to eliciting feedback on how well the company is meeting expectations, the quality of its communications, and what it can do to improve them.”

On the final point, the authors state something that I believe is often overlooked as a part of any compliance strategy. It is that “integrated reporting enhances discipline. It forces management and employees to think about both the financial and the ESG implications of their decisions and helps spur innovation as they seek to improve both kinds of performance.” The FCPA Guidance speaks to Incentives and Disciplinary Measures, which is generally considered to be both the carrot and the stick. The stick to demonstrate that there should be appropriate discipline in place and administered for any violation of the FCPA or a company’s compliance program. The carrot as the DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. This would dovetail with the authors’ observation that integrated reporting enhances discipline.

Eccles and Serafeim discuss in their article the corporate benefits of having a sustainability strategy. I think their ideas are applicable to the compliance field and give you new ways to think about old problems. As for the Astros, maybe they could develop a winning strategy.

Filed under: Best Practices,compliance programs,Department of Justice,FCPA,FCPA Guidance — tfoxlaw @ 1:01 am
Tags: best practices, compliance programs, DOJ, ethics and compliance, FCPA, HBR

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Legal Reform News Daily / Wall Street Journal

Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2013/01/15/siemens-sued-by-tipster-claiming-retaliation-over-fcpa-allegations-he-raised/?KEYWORDS=lawsuit&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

The FCPA Professor wrote about the conference in two posts this week. The second post, entitled “Seeing the Light from the ‘Dark Ages’”, reported on the panel discussion. In this post, the Professor flatly says that DPAs and NPAs should be abolished in the context of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement and that a compliance defense should be added to the FCPA. In the other corner stands Mike Volkov, who said in a recent post, entitled “The Continuing Controversy Over DPAs and NPAs”, that DPAs and NPAs are part of the growing arsenal of prosecutorial tools that can be brought to bear by the DOJ and now the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Professor previously articulated his views against DPAs and NPAs last fall in a post entitled “Assistant Attorney General Breuer’s Unconvincing Defense Of DPAs / NPAs”. In that post he said that the “use of NPAs or DPAs allow “under-prosecution” of egregious instance of corporate conduct while at the same time facilitate the “over-prosecution” of business conduct.” The ‘under-prosecution’ comes “because they [DPAs and NPAs] do not result in any actual charges filed against a company, and thus do not require the company to plead to any charges, allow egregious instances of corporate conduct to be resolved too lightly without adequate sanctions and without achieving maximum deterrence.” The ‘over-prosecution’ comes “because of the “carrots” and “sticks’ relevant to resolving a DOJ enforcement action often nudge companies to agree to these vehicles for reasons of risk-aversion and efficiency and not necessarily because the conduct at issue actually violates the law.” Volkov, being a former prosecutor, says that “Prosecutors like to have a variety of tools. An up or down decision system – indict or decline to indict – does not give prosecutors any ability to address the hard cases, where they are more inclined to decline prosecution rather than indict.”

However, I am neither a former prosecutor, like Volkov, nor a former white collar defense lawyer, like the Professor. I am a recovering trial lawyer who then went in-house. From this background I think that there is another line of reasoning as to why DPAs and NPAs are useful FCPA compliance enforcement tools and that line of reasoning is certainty. The primary reason for the prosecution and a company entering into a DPA/NPA is certainty. The one thing I learned in almost 20 years of trying cases is that nothing is certain when you leave the final decision to an ultimate trier of fact who is not yourself, whether that trier of fact be a jury, judge or arbitrator. The most important thing for a company is certainty and that is even more paramount when a potential criminal conviction looms over its corporate head. Certainty is equally critical for the prosecution. No matter how ‘slam dunk’ the facts are, or appear to be, once a prosecutor turns over the final decision in a case to another trier of fact; the prosecution has lost certainty in the final decision. Every corporate defendant who goes to trial can and should raise all procedural and factual defenses available to it. No prosecutor can ever be 100% certain that it will win every court ruling or that a guilty conviction will be upheld on appeal. However, a DPA/NPA can bring certainty. For a company, certainty in its rights and obligations, for the prosecution the same is true.

There was another article which considered the panel discussion held at the Corporate Crime Reporter conference entitled “McInerney Defends Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements”. This article included quotes from David Uhlmann, who said that he believes, “This is about a profound ambivalence in parts of the Department about the very notion of corporate criminality.” Uhlmann believes that it this ambivalence which has driven the use of DPAs. He believes that the DOJ should make an “up or down” decision on whether a corporation should be prosecuted or not. He was quoted as saying “There is no more important role that the Justice Department plays than its role investigating and prosecuting crime. And if the Justice Department believes that a particular case warrants criminal prosecution, it should bring criminal charges. It should not sacrifice criminal prosecution to a private agreement never entered in court, never overseen by a judge in any meaningful way that doesn’t involve any public hearing, that doesn’t involve any corporate officials coming into the courtroom admitting guilt. On the other hand, if the Justice Department doesn’t believe that a criminal prosecution is necessary or warranted, then they should decline. They should decline prosecution in favor of — in most cases they have the option of civil or administrative enforcement.”

The Professor had a slightly different take on the use of DPAs in the context of criminal prosecutions of corporations. He was quoted as saying, “The Department has become so uncomfortable with the traditional notions of corporate criminal liability that they have constructed and indeed championed this alternative reality that is equally problematic.” Further, “These resolutions have had a troubling, distortive and toxic effect on this one area of law,” Koehler concluded. “There is no judicial scrutiny of most fcpa enforcement theories.” And, lastly, “Of course, the Justice Department is in favor of these because it makes their job easier. Of course, the FCPA bar and FCPA Inc. is in favor of these it expands the market for legal services.”

Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General McInerney made clear that he is not ambivalent at all about corporate criminal liability and specifically stated this. So let me speak from the perspective of a lawyer from Houston, who has represented companies in the energy space for quite some time. The frustration that boiled over from the lack of prosecutions regarding the financial troubles of the recent years should not obscure the fact that the DOJ has and will continue to pursue criminal cases against corporations.

But to paraphrase Joe Jackson, something else is going on ‘round here with prosecutions of corporate criminal conduct and the use of DPAs/NPAs. While one role of the DOJ is to prosecute law breakers; I believe that another role of the DOJ is to increase and encourage compliance with laws. The DPA/NPA debate does not stand in a vacuum. I believe that by offering incentives for companies to self-disclose and cooperate, the DOJ is increasing compliance with the FCPA. If there is no incentive to cooperate, there will be none. Period. If a company will face a criminal indictment or charge if it investigates a matter and self-discloses to the DOJ, how many companies will do so? McInerney was quoted as saying, “You are disincentivizing companies in terms of doing the right thing. You are not crediting companies for doing the right thing.”

Now let me take the flip side; Arthur Anderson. For all the howls that there is no empirical evidence that indicting and convicting companies puts them out of business; I am certainly not persuaded. I saw it happen, here in Houston. Was it in the interest of the US government to put Arthur Anderson out of business? Did it further the policies of this country to go from the Big Four to the Big Three? What about all the Arthur Anderson employees who did not work on the Enron account, what policy did it further to have them lose everything they invested in their professional life? If DPAs/NPAs are less draconian in their effect than destruction of a corporation’s existence, does that make them somehow less useful? If the DOJ wants to put such a factor into their decision making, I find that to be an appropriate calculus.

As to the charge that the FCPA Bar/FCPA Inc. used DPAs/NPAs to expand their market for work? [Full disclosure - I am a member of the FCPA Bar and ergo, FCPA Inc.] I think that it is the job of a lawyer to advise his or her clients on their legal obligations and to assist in fulfilling those obligations. Is it in my own myopic self-interest to advocate compliance with the FCPA? Or am I a part of the FCPA Bar and Inc. which assists companies to comply with a now 35 year old law? Whichever answer you prefer, I believe that there is more compliance now and that the use of DPAs/NPAs is a contributing factor to this increased compliance.

Another panelist, Anthony Barkow posited yet another angle. He said “one the primary policy justifications — or certainly a significant policy justification — is — getting DPAs and NPAs is easy. “It’s a lot easier than charging a company,”” Barkow said. “And it’s a lot easier than charging it and to try to get a plea.” While I do not pretend to know the intricacies of obtaining an indictment or going before a grand jury, it is always easier to settle something rather than try a case. But that does not mean any less work goes on, either from the corporate side or especially from the government side. FCPA enforcement actions are huge, document intensive cases and from what little I know of the process, the DOJ works quite hard to craft an appropriate resolution for each case. Further, there are multiple levels of review in the DOJ so many sets of eyes look at these matters. So while it may be easier to reach a resolution rather than charging and criminally trying a corporation, that does not mean in any way, shape or form that this work is easy. The work is hard, time intensive and takes literally thousands of man-hours by all parties involved to reach any resolution. Simply because a new enforcement tool is available, which is short of a criminal indictment and trial, does not mean that it is not a useful tool and should not be used.

Mike Volkov ended his post with the following, “The debate will continue – I have no doubt of that.” I would certainly second that notion. But from where I sit the use of DPAs/NPAs has improved compliance with the FCPA because their use has given corporations a real incentive to thoroughly investigate allegations of bribery and corruption and then work with the government to appropriately remediate the situation.

Filed under: Deferred Prosecution Agreement,Department of Justice,FCPA,FCPA Professor,Michael Volkov,Non-Prosecution Agreements,SEC,Uncategorized — tfoxlaw @ 1:01 am
Tags: compliance, compliance programs, Department of Justice, DOJ, DPA, FCPA, FCPA Professor, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Michael Volkov, NPA, SEC

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/banks-agencys-oversight-slow-costly-221328021–finance.html?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

I am currently attending the Hanson Wade Oil and Gas Supply Chain Compliance conference in Houston. The event is excellent and the presentations have been ‘spot on’ for the nuts and bolts of how to do compliance. As the conference is in Houston, a number of the speakers and attendees are from energy companies but the concepts that are being discussed apply to all companies which have an anti-corruption or anti-bribery compliance program. One of the things that came through each of the presentations was that as compliance programs mature, many companies are developing programs which are more tailored towards the risks that companies face, which are ascertained through more sophisticated risk assessments and management of those risks.

This pattern is certainly consistent with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance which says that a company should assess its risks and manage its risks. From this starting position, a company can then put together a well thought out and reasoned approach to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance. Many of the presentations dealt with third parties and the differing responses and approaches companies have developed for the specific risks that they have uncovered.

Clearly third party risk mitigation through due diligence is key. How much due diligence is enough? One speaker said that it is a balancing call to determine the right amount. There were several presentations which spoke about the increasing use of technology to assist companies in this process. One speaker, a former federal prosecutor, said that one of the things that she looked for when a prosecutor was the ‘thoughtful analysis’ that the FCPA Guidance speaks about. To this end she believes that the human element will always be important because prosecutors want to see the thought process of not only how your program is designed but how you have crafted your risk mitigation based upon the information that you have assessed.

One of the speakers listed some of the factors to begin the review of your third parties. Recognizing that there is no one all-encompassing list, she suggested the following:

1. How many third parties do you have?
2. Where are these third parties located?
3. Industry or sector do you conduct business?
4. What is the relationship of the third party to a foreign government or state owned enterprise?
5. Are the owners of the third party related at all to government employees?
6. Is the use of the third party a business necessity or not? Why do you need to use sales representatives?
7. What are the reputations and qualifications of the third parties? Can they do what you need them to do from a commercial perspective?
8. How much control will you have over the third parties? Contrast the control that you have over sales agents with the lesser amount of control that you have over distributors and joint ventures.

From the answers to some of these questions you can begin to craft your third party due diligence inquiries. I was intrigued by one speaker who speech contrasted the steps that you might take with a lower risk third party with that of a higher risk third party. She likened the lower risk approach to that of a compact car and set out the following suggestions:

• Rank each third party by the risk you have assessed;
• Perform an Internet search on the third party;
• Perform reference checks on the third party;
• Interview control persons involved with the third party;
• Agreement to abide by anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws;
• Insert appropriate compliance terms and conditions in your third party contracts.

She contrasted the Compact model with what she termed the ‘Luxury model’ requirements of a third party program:

• Prioritize your third parties by risk;
• Appoint a Business Unit sponsor for each third party;
• Develop a detailed third party application;
• Perform an electronic records search on each third party;
• Also perform independent screening of each third party;
• Perform reference checks on each third party;
• Perform site visits and interviews of each third party;
• Have each third party acknowledgement your company’s Code of Conduct;
• Require each third party  to go through ethics training;
• Create a company committee, consisting of internal business, legal and compliance representatives to review your high risk third parties;
• Insert compliance terms and conditions into each third party contract;
• Require both internal and external audits of each third party;
• Perform annual updates on your third parties; and
• Perform quarterly electronic database rescreening.

There was also a discussion of some common Red Flags that you should be on the outlook for. They included:

• Excessive commissions paid to third parties;
• Unreasonable discounts given to third parties such as distributors;
• Vaguely described services in a third party contract or invoice back to your company;
• A third party which is in a different line of business than the one you want to hire to assist your company;
• Close association by the third party with a Foreign Official;
• Retention of the third party is required by a Foreign Official;
• The third party is a shell company located offshore; and
• Payments made to the third party are in a country different from the location where the third party’s services are delivered.

The concepts I derived from this presentation is that you should assess and manage your risks. If you determine them to be low, the Compact Model may work for you. If your third party risks are high, then the Luxury Model may be more appropriate. If you use a thoughtful and reasoned approach, you can navigate this area. But always Document, Document and then Document what you have done and why.

Filed under: Agents,Best Practices,compliance programs,Department of Justice,Distributors,Due Diligence,FCPA,FCPA Guidance,Foeign Business Partner,Hanson Wade,Risk Assessment,SEC — tfoxlaw @ 5:12 am
Tags: best practices, compliance programs, DOJ, FCPA, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC

© Thomas R. Fox, 2013

Legal Reform News Daily / Wall Street Journal

Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2013/01/15/jury-still-out-on-schapiros-sec-enforcement-legacy/?KEYWORDS=%22foreign+corrupt+practices%22&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

Legal Reform News Daily / Wall Street Journal

Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/15/judicial-arbitration-is-unconstitutional-say-newspapers/?KEYWORDS=%22us+chamber%22&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

Read more: http://newsok.com/never-a-shortage-of-ridiculous-lawsuits-in-u.s.-courts/article/3745903/?page=1&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=