In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
Author: admin
There are multiple areas in the DOJ’s 2019 Guidance which intersect with the area of continuous improvement. They include the following:
Prior Indications – Were there prior opportunities to detect the misconduct in question, such as audit reports identifying relevant control failures or allegations, complaints, or investigations? What is the company’s analysis of why such opportunities were missed?
Remediation – What specific changes has the company made to reduce the risk that the same or similar issues will not occur in the future? What specific remediation has addressed the issues identified in the root cause and missed opportunity analysis?
This ties to the 2012 FCPA Guidance, which made clear that compliance audits, with actionable remediation plans, are a key component of any effective compliance program. Another way to do achieve these multiple and intersecting goals is through proactive monitoring. Proactive monitoring is an excellent technique through which a company can engage in continuous improvement. Nonetheless, it has many other benefits including regulatory and evidence in a criminal investigation if needed under anti-corruption laws such as the FCPA. The bottom line is that all those scenarios might justify a company to engage a proactive monitorship to come in and do a complete ethics.
Three key takeaways:
- A proactive monitorship can be reactive proactivity to look at a specific issue…
- …or used to test a compliance program…
- …or used in a variety of legal and business manners.
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- M&A is not dead. (FT)
- Businesses worry about opening too soon. (NYT)
- Google institutes KYA. (NYT)
- Who will protect workers? (Houston Chronicle)
We have been getting accountability all wrong in the compliance profession. It’s not a set of tasks – it’s a way of thinking and it has to come from the heart as well as the head. On Accountability: The Heart of Compliance Tom Fox and Sam Silverstein dig into what accountability means to the corporate compliance function and business organizations and most significantly, how to make it an integral part of your culture. In this episode Sam and I, consider personal accountability during this time of the Coronavirus health crisis and economic dislocation. Some of the highlights include:
- Why are rational commitments so critical?
- Why leaders must be committed to all employees.
- Be accountable outside the office as well.
- As a leader are you a steward to all stakeholders?
For more information on Sam Silverstein and his work on accountability, click here.
As Gronk ends his self-imposed isolation from the Pats to rejoin the Golden Boy in Tampa Bay, self-distancing Tom and Jay are back to consider some of the top compliance articles and stories which caught their collective eye this week.
- For the SEC drops a Friday Happy Hour FCPA enforcement action involving ENI. Matt Kelly breaks the story in Radical Compliance. Tom provides lessons learned in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog. Tom and Matt take a deep dive in their podcast Compliance into the Weeds. Harry Cassin in the FCPA Blog. Dylan Tokar reports in the WSK Risk and Compliance Journal.
- Tenacious whistleblower awarded $27MM. Kevin LaCroix in the D&O Diary.
- Some post COVID-19 scenarios. Gemma Aiolfi explores in the FCPA Blog.
- Leaders, dirty hands and COVID-19. Muel Kaptien in Risk and Compliance Platform Europe.
- Data and security requirements are here to stay. William Schildknecht in NYU’s Compliance and Enforcement Blog.
- Why companies should leave compliance alone. Jenna Voss, Christina Arianna and Chase Goldstein In CCI.
- EY takes a brand beating. Martin Woods in Compliance Week. (Sub Req’d)
- Where was, and is, and will be your Board? Carrie Penman asks in Navex Global’s Ethics and Compliance Matters
- Can the government forgfeit a defense lawyers fees? Sara Kropf explores in Part 2 on Grand Jury Target.
- On Compliance and Coronavirus this week: Fizza Khan on financial regulation during COVID-19; Gordon Firemark on force majeure; Sundar Narayanan on a CCO using empathy during the coronavirus crisis.
- On the Compliance Podcast Network, Tom continues his month of exploring continuous improvement, all on 31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program. This week saw the following offerings:Monday-keeping track of current events for continuous improvement; Tuesday-big data and continuous improvement; Wednesday-using big data; Thursday-measuring the effectiveness of a compliance program; Friday-Proactive monitoring for continuous improvement. Note 31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program now has its own iTunes channel. If you want to binge out and listen to only these episodes, click here. This month’s sponsor is Affiliated Monitors, Inc.
Tom Fox is the Compliance Evangelist and can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Jay Rosen is Mr. Monitor and can be reached at jrosen@affiliatedmonitors.com.
Determining effectiveness is a key part of continuous improvement. Yet how to do so still bedevils many compliance professionals. You need to consider both outcomes and outputs. Outcomes will show you the results of specific actions, such as investigations and conclusions to them. Numbers are attractive because they can form a “straight line” about how your compliance program is functioning. But you must remember that the numbers only give you one view of a compliance program. You also need to consider the qualitative side of the equation.
There is the need for both a quantitative and qualitative approach to measuring compliance program effectiveness. Numbers are important but they only tell part of the equation. Vin DiCianni has said, “Both are very important, but I think without having consideration of both sides of the equation, you will not obtain a full understanding of how effective compliance program is in its operation.”
Three key takeaways:
- You should test your compliance program effectiveness through both a qualitative and quantitative approach.
- Bring in an outside party to interview your employees.
- The Resource Guide is an excellent resource to consider compliance program effectiveness.
Welcome to the newest addition to the Compliance Podcast Network, Compliance and Coronavirus. As the Voice of Compliance, I wanted to start a podcast which will help to bring both clarity and sanity to the compliance practitioner and compliance profession during this worldwide health and healthcare crisis. In this episode, I am joined by Sundar Narayanan, Director at Nexdigm. We explore a recent blog post by Narayanan on the FCPA Blog, Compliance officers can be pillars of empathy during the outbreak.
Resources
For additional reading see Compliance officers can be pillars of empathy during the outbreak
For more information on Nexdigm, see their website
For more information on Sundar Narayana, see his Linkedin profile
This podcast is sponsored by SAI Global. To learn how you can protect your business operations and workforce during these uncertain times, visit saiglobal.com/risk for free resources, expert guidance, and industry-leading technology.
In this episode we discuss how an independent integrity review can be helpful for organizations that may be facing actual or potential compliance issues. We consider some of the following are whether an independent integrity review and monitoring be helpful where a healthcare organization may have reason to believe it has an actual or potential compliance problem, but has not yet been subject to an enforcement action or a corporate integrity agreement imposed by the government? How can engaging an independent integrity monitor help an organization in dealing with an enforcement agency? Why do government enforcement and regulatory agencies prefer not to exclude important health care providers who have compliance issues?
In this episode, we consider examples of independent monitoring involving healthcare organizations or systems. Issues considered are how do healthcare organizations or the agencies that regulate them may use monitoring in connection with significant business transactions – as opposed to law enforcement or disciplinary proceedings? Examples where organizations and government regulators have jointly agreed to use an independent firm to monitor implementation and compliance with conditions of a healthcare transactions.
