FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

August 21, 2015

Archie Bunker, Batgirl and the International Fight Against Corruption

Filed under: Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,Corruption in Brazil,Corruption in China,FCPABlog,New York Times,Petrobras — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

August 11, 2015

What Goes Downhill May Go Uphill in FCPA Compliance

Filed under: Best Practices,Brazil,Corruption in Brazil,Department of Justice,FCPA,Petrobras — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Water Going Uphill 2Usually the question I am posed is how far down the chain must you go in your due diligence to ensure that your suppliers are in compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). I would pose that now, after the Petrobras scandal, a company may need to examine the flow in the other direction. I thought about this directional shift when I read an exhaustive report in the Sunday New York Times (NYT) on the Petrobras scandal, entitled “Brazil’s Great Oil Swindle”, by David Segal. The article reviews the genesis of and details the ongoing nature of the Petrobras scandal.

While I have previously written about the other Brazilian companies that have been caught up in the scandal, such as Oderbrecht, Camargo Corrêa and UTC Engenharia, Segal’s article detailed a level of immersion in corruption that should concern every US Company subject to the FCPA and catch the eye of Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors handling FCPA cases. It appears that the companies that had direct contracts with Petrobras also colluded in the old-fashioned anti-trust sense, so that not only did they control all the subcontract work done on any Petrobras project but they would also demand bribes from the subcontractors which they then passed up the chain to Petrobras executives and eventually Brazilian politicians. If this scheme turns out to be true, it literally could explode potential FCPA exposure for any US Company doing business on any subcontract where Petrobras was the eventual beneficiary.

Segal reported, “according to prosecutors, these companies stopped competing and started to collaborate. They formed a cartel and decided, in advance, which of them would win a particular deal. A charade competition was orchestrated, and the anointed winner could charge vastly more than it would in a free market.” Further, “A document obtained by prosecutors laid out what it called the “rules of the game.” The trumped-up bidding process was labeled a “sports tournament”, with an assortment of rounds and a “trophy.” There was a no-sore-loser codicil, too: “The teams that participate in a round should honor the rules that have been agreed on, even when they are not the winner.”

But the corruption did not stop simply at these non-Petrobras entities. These companies would demand bribes from their subcontractors that they passed up the line to Petrobras. Segal wrote, “From 1 to 5 percent of the value of a given contract was diverted to those on the receiving end of the scheme, a group that included 50 politicians from six parties, according to prosecutors. Money from cartel members took a circuitous route to politicians’ pockets, passing through ghost corporations whose owners made bribes look like consulting fees.”

Think about all of this for a minute. What happens when everyone and every company associated with a National Oil Company (NOC) is in on the corruption? I thought about this question when I read an article in the Financial Times (FT) by Andres Schipani, entitled “We were terrorized by the drop in oil prices”, where he discussed how the drop in world oil prices has negatively affected Venezuela more than any other top oil producing company. Part of the country’s trouble is the rampant corruption around its NOC PDVSA. Schipani quoted a former minster for the following, “The design of the political economy here only benefits the corrupt.” Moreover, the country is near the bottom of the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (TI-CPI) coming in at 161st out of 175 countries listed.

Most Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners had focused their third party risk management program around third parties, first on the sales side and then in the Supply Chain (SC). However now companies may well have to look at other relationships, particularly those where the company is a subcontractor involved in a country prone to corruption with a NOC or other key state owned enterprise. Last year the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in an article entitled “Venezuelan Firm Is Probed In U.S.”, by José De Córdoba and Christopher M. Matthews, reported that a US company ProEnergy Services LLC (ProEnergy), a Missouri based engineering, procurement and construction company, sold turbines to Venezuelan company Derwick Associates de Venezuela SA (Derwick), who provided them to the Venezuelan national power company. The article reported that the DOJ’s “criminal fraud section are reviewing actions of Derwick and ProEnergy for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. Derwick was reported to have been “awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts in little more than a year to build power plants in Venezuela, shortly before the country’s power grid began to sputter in 2009”. All of this with a commission rate paid by ProEnergy to Derwick of a reported 5%.

The Brazilian investigation poses far more dire consequences for any US Company that did business with the cartel of Brazilian companies that had locked up the Petrobras work. It means that you need to go back immediately and not only review the underlying due diligence which you did (probably none); then review the contracts with those entities; and, finally, cross-reference to see if there were any contract over-charges which were rebated back to the cartel members. If so, you may well have a serious problem on your hands as any unwarranted rebates, refunds, customer credits or anything else that could have been readily converted into cash to be used to fund a bribe.

This second part is one thing that challenges many compliance officers. The compliance function does not always have visibility into the transactions assigned to specific contracts or projects like your company might be engaged in for Petrobras in Brazil. However it also speaks to the need for transaction monitoring as not simply a cutting edge technique or even best practice but a required financial controls tool that is also applicable to compliance internal controls as well.

As Brazilian prosecutors expand ever outward from Petrobras, US companies subject to the FCPA and UK companies and others subject to the UK Bribery Act would do well to review everything around their Brazilian operations, contracts and dealings. The Petrobras scandal has shown two clear trends to-date. First is that we are far from the end of this scandal. Second, the prosecutors have been fearless so far in following the corruption trail wherever it may go. If they follow it to US companies, they could prosecute them on their own in Brazil for violation of domestic anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws or turn the evidence over to the DOJ. The thing to do now is to get out ahead of this all too certain waterfall.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

July 30, 2015

The Trait of Empathy in Compliance

Filed under: Adam Bryant,Best Practices,CCO 2.0,Chief Compliance Officer,Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,compliance programs,New York Times — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Large

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hemingway and Trust and Respect for Compliance Leadership

Filed under: Adam Bryant,CCO 2.0,Chief Compliance Officer,Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,compliance programs,Ethical Leadership,Financial Times,New York Times — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

July 20, 2015

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

Filed under: FCPA,New York Times,Promise to Pay — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

June 30, 2015

Another Great Bassist Gone and Tone at the Bottom

Filed under: Best Practices,Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,compliance programs,New York Times,Tone at the Bottom — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , ,

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Calm and Listen to Prog Rock

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

June 24, 2015

Pink Flamingos and the Compliance Audit

Filed under: Audit,Best Practices,Chief Compliance Officer,Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,compliance programs,Department of Justice,FCPA,FCPA Guidance,Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FeatherstoneThe creator of one of the most ubiquitous symbols of mid-century Americana died earlier this week. Don Featherstone, the creator of the pink plastic lawn flamingo, the ultimate symbol of American lawn kitsch, has died. He was 79. Featherstone, a trained sculptor with a classical art background, created the flamingo in 1957 for plastics company Union Products, modeling it after a bird he saw in National Geographic. Millions of the birds have been sold. Whether you think of the Pink Flamingo as a symbol of Miami Vice, Jon Waters and Devine or for something less salacious, here is to Featherstone, a true original.

While Featherstone created one of the ultimate symbols of the second half of the 20th century for a generation of South Floridians, the Japanese company Takata Corporation (Takata) continues to be in the news for much less prestigious reasons. As reported in the New York Times (NYT), in an article entitled “Senate Panel Says Tanaka Cut Audits on Safety”, Hiroko Tabuchi and Danielle Ivory said “In the middle of what would become the largest automotive recall in US history, the Japanese airbag manufacturer Takata halted global safety audits to save money”. Interesting (or perhaps ominously might be a better word) Takata responded by saying it had not halted safety audits for products but rather for worker safety. Doesn’t that give you some comfort?

A US Senate committee report found that “Takata halted global safety audits at its manufacturing plants in 2009, a year after Honda had started recalling a small number of cars to replace the airbags.” These audits were later restarted in 2011 but when they found safety issues related to airbag manufacturing in two key plants, “those findings were not shared with Takata’s headquarters in Tokyo, the report said, citing internal emails from Takata’s safety director at the time.” Moreover, “when the safety director returned to the plant months later to conduct a follow-up audit, employees appeared to scramble to create the appearance of a safety committee within the plant.” Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the report cited an internal Takata email which said, “No safety committee, as such, has been formed” at the plants in question.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance in many ways follows some of the paths laid out by corporate safety departments some 20-30 years ago when safety became much more high profile in US corporations. The safety committee and safety audits became mainstays of any best practices in the area of safety for a company. These techniques inform any anti-corruption best practices compliance program, either under the FCPA, UK Bribery Act or any other anti-corruption regime. Indeed audits are specifically delineated in the FCPA Guidance as a way to assist in the continuous monitoring of your compliance regime. Such an audit can be thought of as a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the compliance criteria are fulfilled. There are three factors which are critical and unfortunately with Takata seemed to be lacking in its safety audit protocol: (1) an effective audit program which specifies all necessary activities for the audit; (2) having competent auditors in place; and (3) an organization that is committed to being audited.

Auditing can take several different forms in an anti-compliance program. As a matter of course, you should audit the compliance program in your own organization. A forensic audit can collect and analyze accounting and internal-controls evidence in your compliance regime. This information can be used to produce a fact-based report that can inform the decision-making process in inquiries, investigations and dispute resolution. The by-products of a forensic audit can include remediation strategies to help a company mitigate and remedy procedural or internal-controls gaps that allowed the underlying issue to occur. Further, an internal audit can review a compliance process to determine if employees are following prescribed processes or internal controls, in an operational Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) or FCPA compliance audit.

In addition to the collection and analysis of evidence, an auditor’s objective is to attest to the credibility of assertions that are under examination, such as the material accuracy of financial statements for which the audited company’s management is responsible. Obviously one of the functions of such an audit is to determine if further investigation is warranted.

Now imagine if this scenario had been followed by Takata. The lack of a safety committee is a glaring omission at any manufacturing facility. Simply noting this and reporting it up the chain could have gone some way towards preventing the situation the company now finds itself in; with a worldwide recall of up to 32 million vehicles. The same is true for a compliance audit. Just as monitoring can provide information to you on a more real-time basis; a compliance audit compliments this real-time oversight with a much deeper dive into what has happened on a historical basis.

The recent BHP Billiton FCPA enforcement action is certainly one to look at in this context. Although there was a committee set up to review gifts and travel requests for the company’s 2008 Olympic hospitality program, the committee did not fulfill this charge. It was alleged in the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) settlement documents that this committee was never intended to pass muster on the applications for tickets and travel for government officials but was simply there to provide guidance.

Once again this situation points out the difference between having a paper compliance program in place and the actual doing of compliance. Even with an appropriate oversight structure in place BHP Billiton did not do the work of compliance by evaluating the applications for travel and tickets to the Beijing Olympics but left it to the devices of the business unit employees who were making the requests and ultimately most directly benefited from the gifting.

Another area ripe for audit in your compliance program is your third parties. While there is no one specific list of transactions or other items which should be audited when it comes to your third parties below are some of the areas you may wish to consider reviewing:

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

The compliance function still is behind the safety function in terms of maturity. Because of this there are many lessons which a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner can draw upon from our colleagues in safety. The safety audit is certainly a technique that can be drafted into your compliance program. But as the ongoing Takata air bag debacle demonstrates, your audit only works if you actually perform it. In other words, the protocol is simple, everyone understands you need to audit, but try and cut costs or corners and you will pay for it in the long run.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

June 17, 2015

Never Tick Off a Redbird

Filed under: Compliance,Compliance and Ethics,compliance programs,Corruption,Cybersecurity — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , ,

Angry RedbirdAt a Press Conference today, Satan officially announced that Hell has frozen over. He made this stunning announcement after the New York Times (NYT) reported that the baseball team with the most World Series wins in the history of the National League (NL), the St. Louis Cardinals, had hacked those paragons of virtue, enormity and the very symbol of baseball greatness, the Houston Astros, to view confidential information. The Cardinals have managed to win 5 World Series in the past 50 years; how many World Series have the Astros won? That would be a big fat nada, ZERO, none, zilch. The NL team with the most World Series wins in the past 50 years was caught hacking into the inner most secrets of one of the worst teams in that same time period. Where are Tom Brady’s deflated balls when you need them?

As reported by Michael Schmidt, in a piece entitled “Cardinals Face F.B.I. Inquiry in Hacking of Astros’ Network”, Major League Baseball (MLB) asked the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the hacking of the Astros “Last year, some of the information was posted anonymously online, according to an article on Deadspin. Among the details that were exposed were trade discussions that the Astros had with other teams. No doubt expecting that nefarious rogue agents of the Chinese government (or worse-the Chinese military) were seeking to wreck havoc on the game once known as ‘America’s pastime’ or “Believing that the Astros’ network had been compromised by a rogue hacker, Major League Baseball notified the F.B.I., and the authorities in Houston opened an investigation. Agents soon found that the Astros’ network had been entered from a computer at a home that some Cardinals officials had lived in. The agents then turned their attention to the team’s front office.” Oops, those darn Chinese; they are never around to blame when you need them.

So move aside New England Patriots, with your petty attempts to manipulate footballs in a championship game. Stop allowing your quarterback to dictate how he uses the tools of his trade, footballs. Do not cheat and call it getting an edge; all of this makes you look like rank amateurs next to the St. Louis Cardinals. Act like a real team and enlist your front office executives to steal information from the worst team in football. For long term pathetic-ness, you might try the Oakland Raiders or just go with the current joke of a team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers whose No. One draft pick, and now face of the franchise, was one of the most ‘ethically challenged’ college players in recent years. If you really want great information about poor football, steal it from the Jacksonville Jaguars. Bill Belichek, you are only limited by your imagination!

As to the Cardinals, what on earth could the Astros have that they could possibly want? Take the Astros record over the past five years; it’s the worst in baseball. You want a piece of that? How about secret information on the leadership savoir fare of the Astros owner ‘Mr. I am smarter than everyone in the room because I made a $100mm in business’ Jim Crane. Why be one of the best-run sports franchises, when you can mimic the Astros? First you can tell everyone how stupid they are because they do not understand how it is in your interest to try and lose; next why you should cut off over 70% of your fan base from even watching games on television so they will not see your joke of a team play and, finally, how to sue the prior owner who sold you the team for mis-representing the quality of the assets.

But do not stop with the owner. The apparent ire of St. Louis (never under-estimate a pissed off Redbird) was directed at a former Cardinal employee who left to become the General Manager of the Astros, Jeff Luhnow. Apparently the Cardinals were upset that the baseball knowledge in Luhnow’s head was now being used by the Astros. (Did I mention the Astros had baseball’s worst record for the past 5 years?) Of course, perhaps the Cardinals could learn how make an offer to the top draft pick in the annual amateur draft and then withdraw the offer so they could make a lower one, thereby losing two top draft picks. That certainly was a brilliant move by the Astros that you would want to use going forward.

The Cardinals action brings up one of the greatest areas of corporate angst; when a business gets its feelings hurt. Heaven forbid. No doubt having recently seen a recent late night showing of the movie Animal House the Cardinals decided not to get mad; they decided to get even. So with this newfound information gleaned from the Astros, it now clear how the Cardinals have been so successful. Not simply being content to cheat, they broke the law to hack into the confidential information of another baseball team to learn that other team’s secret. Now I know why the Astros have been so bad over the years; they had all their confidential information sucked out of their organization by the evil Cardinals. So that giant sucking sound you hear from south Texas is not American jobs going to Mexico because of NAFTA but all the confidential information being sucked out of the Houston Astros.

What are the lessons for a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner? One lesson is it points to the myriad of reasons that companies and individuals engage in bribery and corruption. It is laughable to think that the St. Louis Cardinals, one of the best-run franchises’ in all of sports (or so we thought); could learn anything from the idiots who run the Astros. Yet here we are; out of spite, vindictiveness or just plain old malevolence, front office executives of the Cardinals engaged in conduct that has drawn the scrutiny of the FBI and DOJ. This points to other motivations than fidelity to monetary gain as a reason for bribery and corruption.

Also, cybersecurity is a compliance concern. What protocols to you have in place to protect your data? How will you respond to a breach? What happens if another member of the cartel your business is in engages in criminal activity against you? Will you demand that they are kicked out of the cartel?

I think it also points up how actually Doing Compliance differs from having a paper compliance program in place. Whether you use the McNulty’s Maxims formulations (What did you do to prevent? What did you do to detect it? What did you do after you found out about it?) or the FCPA Guidance formulation that a best practices compliance program should prevent, detect and remedy violations. I am relatively certain the St. Louis Cardinals had a policy against breaking the law by hacking into the database of another baseball team. With equal certainty, I am sure the Cardinals had no program to prevent or detect such illegal conduct for if they did, it would certainly appear they conveniently looked the other way.

Finally, American businesses need to wise up. Stop all the whining, moaning and complaining about data breaches from Chinese/Russian/Bulgarian/the Galactic Empire/the Borg/(name your Evil Empire); you are most at risk from other US companies. For if the best team in the history of the NL will break the law to steal the trade secrets and confidential information of one of the worst teams, is anyone safe? Further, what are the chances that the Cardinals have been trying to steal trade secrets from winning teams? That would be a number way too high for me to even imagine. Quit crying to Congress that it is unfair for you to be required to protect your own data or that it would cost you money or jobs; secure your data now.

Now for a free tip from my consulting company, Advanced Compliance Solutions-if you have super-secret confidential information, make sure it password protected. But more than simply password protected, change you password every 90 days. That is a good first step in case the St. Louis Cardinals come hacking your company.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

June 10, 2015

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

Filed under: Accounting Records violations,Books and Records,Corruption,Corruption,Corruption in Brazil,FCPA,FCPA Professor,FIFA,Financial Times,Francine McKenna,Internal Controls,New York Times,Wall Street Journal — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

 

 

 

 

June 9, 2015

Why Should Americans Care About the FIFA Indictments? Part II – Corruption Changes the Truth of the Game

Filed under: Corruption,Corruption,FIFA — tfoxlaw @ 12:01 am
Tags: , , ,

Mourinhino-the Special OneToday, I continue my (now) four-part series on the above question posed to me recently by a colleague. (I know I wrote that it would be a three-part series but as usual I got carried away when I started writing.) Yesterday, I wrote that only the US government had the wherewithal, tools and will to do so. Today, I focus on the second of my four reasons on why Americans should care about the Department of Justice (DOJ) bringing their indictments against the 14 named defendants who were all associated with the governing body of international soccer, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Up today is the corruption in the game of international soccer (AKA Football).

Corruption never stands alone because once bribes are paid for one thing, a business, entity or person opens themselves up to other situations involving bribery and corruption. So if a company hires someone with a propensity to pay bribes, such a person would have no compunction in defrauding the company in other ways. Put another way, a tiger doesn’t change its stripes very often. Take South Africa, the country which is alleged to have paid Jack Warner a $10MM bribe to secure his vote and the votes of those in the regional soccer federation he controlled, CONCACAF, to be awarded the right to host the 2010 World Cup.

Last year the New York Times (NYT) reported that the entire FIFA referee system came under great concern because of match-fixing allegations that swirled around the South African soccer federation. Given what we know now about how that organization operated is it any wonder other parts would be corrupt? And it turned out that FIFA knew about it all along.

In a NYT 2014 ‘Rigged’ two part series, entitled “Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup” and “Inside the Fixing: How a Gang Battered Soccer’s Frail Integrity”, reporters Declan Hill and Jeré Longman wrote about a NYT investigation of match fixing ahead of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. The articles provided an unusually detailed look at the ease with which professional gamblers can fix matches. The article reviewed an “internal, confidential report by FIFA, soccer’s world governing body. FIFA’s investigative report and related documents, which were obtained by The New York Times and have not been publicly released, raise serious questions about the vulnerability of the World Cup to match fixing.” The reporters noted that the FIFA “report found that the match-rigging syndicate and its referees infiltrated the upper reaches of global soccer in order to fix exhibition matches and exploit them for betting purposes. It provided extensive details of the clever and brazen ways that fixers apparently manipulated “at least five matches and possibly more” in South Africa ahead of the World Cup. As many as 15 matches were targets, including a game between the United States and Australia, according to interviews and emails printed in the FIFA report.”

These NYT articles detailed how betting syndicates would target the national football associations that are charged with selecting and supplying the referees in international matches. The articles pointed out how the betting syndicates would find the weakest link in any security or compliance system and then exploit it. In the 2010 World Cup it was both the South African football association that signed contracts and its allowing the betting syndicates to select the referees for games to actually bribery of referees themselves which were the root causes of the corruption.

Imagine the difference if the South African soccer federation was not corrupt and had won the rights to host the 2010 World Cup on the strength of their bid, not their payment of bribes. Think the tone down through organization about corruption and bribery would have been any different if down the line, they knew the top of the organization was committed to winning the bid (and did so) through legal means?

Yet the corruption of individual soccer matches at the international level continued into the 2014 World Cup. In a The Telegraph article, entitled “Football match-fixing: Ghana deal casts cloud over World Cup finals in Brazil”, reporters Claire Newell, Holly Watt and Ben Bryant detailed that the “Ghana Football Association calls in police after undercover investigation by The Telegraph and Channel Four’s Dispatches programme finds that the President of Ghana’s FA agreed for the team to play in international matches that others were prepared to rig.”

They wrote, “The president of the country’s football association then met the undercover reporter and investigator, along with Mr Forsythe and Mr Nketiah, and agreed a contract which would see the team play in the rigged matches, in return for payment. The contract stated that it would cost $170,000 (£100,000) for each match organised by the fixers involving the Ghanaian team, and would allow a bogus investment firm to appoint match officials, in breach of Fifa rules. “You [the company] will always have to come to us and say how you want it to go…the result,” said Mr Forsythe. “That’s why we will get the officials that we have greased their palms, so they will do it. If we bring in our own officials to do the match… You’re making your money. You have to give them [the referees] something… they are going to do a lot of work for you, so you have to give them something,” said Mr Nketiah, who is also the chief executive of the Ghanaian football club Berekum Chelsea and sits on the management committee of the Ghana U20 national team.”

In a meeting prior to the 2014 World Cup, when Ghana was playing warm-up matches in the US, Forsythe and Nketiah introduced the undercover team to Kwesi Nyantakyi, the president of the Ghana FA. In a meeting in “Florida, the president agreed to a contract that stated each match would cost the investment company $170,000 and that they could appoint the match officials for each game. A contract was drawn up that specified that “The Company will appoint and pay for the cost of the referees/match officials in consultation with an agreed Fifa Member association(s),” in direct breach of the rules that prohibit third parties from appointing officials, in order to protect their impartiality. During the meeting, the president suggested that the fictional investment company put on two matches after the World Cup to prove that they were able to organise games.”

But even more troubling is that FIFA itself has directly affected the integrity of international soccer. In an article in The Sunday Times, entitled “Special One appalled by €5m Fifa payment”, reporter Jonathan Northcraft wrote about the reaction of Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho (AKA the ‘Special One’) to the revelations that the FIFA Executive Committee paid the Football Association of Ireland, €5 million in bribe money “to drop legal action after a controversial goal gave France victory over Ireland in a playoff for the 2010 World Cup.” The issue revolved around the on-field illegal handball played by French striker Thierry Henry that “went unsanctioned in the second leg of their playoff in 2009. The FAI launched a legal appeal to become the ‘33rd team’ at the World Cup but stopped proceedings after receiving the payment from Fifa.”

So now the FIFA scandal has gone from paying bribes to fixing game venues to corrupting contracts to changing how games are decided. Mourinho was quoted, “This one, for me, is the end of the world. You change the truth of the game for €5m? What next? Because more stories will come for sure.”

Why should Americans care about the about FIFA indictments? I realize that most Americans do not hold the game of international soccer with the same passion as the rest of the world. But for anyone who loves sports, to have the worlds most premier sporting championship tinged with corruption and evidence of match fixing, as the Special One said, changes the truth of the game. That would seem to me to be reason enough to care.

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

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

 

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.