Author: admin

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds – Episode 43 – The Linde Declination

On June 16, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Declination to Linde North American Inc. and Linde Gas North America LLC (collectively “Linde”). This is the first Declination issued by the DOJ in the era of the Trump Administration. For that reason alone, it was instructive and should be studied by the compliance profession. However, the case presented several interesting factors which merit consideration, so we are discussing in depth to present lessons to be learned for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner.

Lessons Learned

This was yet another Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) action where a company performed insufficient due diligence in the acquisition phase. The timing of the Linde purchase of Spectra Gases and Spectra Gases’ purchase of the income-producing assets is too close in time to be a coincidence. It would certainly appear that Linde purchased Spectra Gases to facilitate its acquisition of the boron column and other assets. If your company is going to make such a multi-step acquisition, you must perform due diligence on all the actors and the assets involved.

The Byzantine corporate structure created for the ownership of the boron column, its operation, and its management contract are clear red flags that any CCO should sniff out immediately. While I am sure the internal corporate excuse for this clear ruse was the ubiquitous ‘tax considerations,’ every such transaction should also be reviewed by compliance. Anytime there is more than one entity to accomplish one task, there is the possibility of fraud. Further, it is unclear how Linde could not have been aware of the company’s ownership interests that it ultimately controlled. It would seem that the company did not even make any inquiries.

Even in 2006, the Republic of Georgia’s reputation for bribery and corruption was quite high. The 2006 Transparency International-Corrupt Perceptions Index (TI-CPI) listed Georgia at 99 out of 176 countries, which warranted red flag scrutiny. Extra care is warranted if you are purchasing an entity in a country with such a well-known affinity for corruption. Perhaps in 2006, Linde did not view the FCPA as something it would deal with in such a situation.

Yet even with all the apparent miss-steps and non-steps of compliance, the company was able to secure a declination from the DOJ. While there may be some additional penalties or sanctions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the failures of internal controls, the result obtained by Linde was certainly superior. The company has met the four pillars under the FCPA Pilot Program through (a) self-disclosure, (b) extraordinary cooperation, (3) full remediation, and (d) profit disgorgement. Interestingly, in this case, the profit disgorgement would have been beyond the five-year limitations for profit disgorgement under the recent Supreme Court decision in Kokesh. If the SEC brings an FCPA enforcement action, additional facts may be recited in any resolution documents.

Nevertheless, kudos are due to Linde and its counsel for obtaining this declination. Every CCO should study it for both the superior result received and underlying facts to see if you face anything similar in the Republic of Georgia or elsewhere.

For a full copy of the Linde Declination, click here. 

Categories
Blog

Day 17 of One Month to Better Investigations and Reporting – Whom to Suspend During an Internal Investigation and De-confliction

Scope of VW Suspensions Grows”, William Boston reported on the ongoing internal investigation by the company’s outside counsel Jones Day. Boston noted that VW had “suspended a larger number of engineers than previously acknowledged, following a recommendation from the law firm conducting” the investigation. The article went on to state, “Jones Day urged suspension of anyone who could have been involved in the scam – from high-level decision makers to ordinary engineers – to prevent possible perpetrators from tampering with the evidence.” This final statement emphasizes a key consideration in an FCPA investigation, which is to tie down the evidence. Former Arnold & White partner Mara Senn has said that “probably from the government’s perspective, the most important aspect of setting up an investigation in a way that makes them feel comfortable, is ensuring that all data is locked down.” However, if you are worried about evidence tampering, you may have a bigger problem. Pointing up the difficulties in making such a blanket sweep, an unnamed source, who provided this information to Boston, quoted the WSJ piece as saying, “We had to suspend everyone in this area to get them out of the way of this process. This is necessary for the investigation, but it’s tough because we are now missing their professional knowledge and experience.” This issue brings up another point that Senn has discussed: when to suspend or discipline an employee during an internal investigation. Senn said, “That is a very case-by-case difficult question to answer, but in general, I think it’s better to keep them around for as long as you need them. Once they’ve been fired or otherwise disciplined, even if you keep them around, they will be less cooperative with you and possibly, if you fire them, not cooperative. You can require them to cooperate in the termination agreement, but, in practice, cooperation can mean many different things.” Given the Schrems decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), I wonder how the investigation will be fair with the German-based employees. Data in the US would be deemed company-owned, but in Europe, it may be private to the investigated employee. This problem became even greater with the recent decision by Privacy Regulators from 28 EU nations that backed the EC J’s Schrems decision that invalidated the Safe Harbor regime. As reported by Jo Sherman in the FCPA Blog, “that closed the legal pipeline by which data has flowed freely from the EU to the U.S. for the last 15 years. The rationale for the court decision and the subsequent backing of the EU Data Protection Authorities is that the U.S. government’s surveillance powers are considered too excessive and disproportionate and can override the data protections for EU citizens under the Safe Harbor framework.” Lanny Breuer, the former number two at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and now a partner at Covington and Burling LLP raised an interesting concern in the Justice Department’s FCPA Pilot Program context. It is around what Breuer terms “de-confliction.” This involves the government asking a company to halt its investigation for the government to be the first to interview witnesses. At the FCPA Blog Conference, Breuer said that if “de-confliction” is required as cooperation to gain the benefits of the pilot program, such a request from the DOJ would be “an extraordinary request, in my view” because it “could lead companies to be unable to disclose to other agencies or shareholders, and it could keep a board in the dark about the alleged wrongdoing.” Breuer added, “In general, publicly traded companies can’t just stand down from doing an investigation when such an allegation comes in.” He also commented that “he’d been asked to do so a couple of times.” Breuer raised four questions during his presentation, which every investigator must consider in de-confliction. 

(1) Would complying with the request be consistent with directors’ and corporate officers’ fiduciary duty of oversight?; 

(2) How can a company make decisions without speaking with its employees?; 

(3) How will a delay affect the company’s other regulatory obligations?;

(4) How can external counsel advise a company without knowing the facts? Companies hire external counsel to conduct thorough investigations, evaluate their clients’ conduct, and provide informed legal advice. These tasks can be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish where external counselors have their hands tied behind their backs. The DOJ could have a broader remit or be involved with other ongoing investigations where they might make such requests. However, such ‘de-confliction’ could stop a company from engaging in a root cause analysis or even a robust investigation. At the same conference, an earlier panelist, Gerald Kral, the Chief Ethics and & Compliance Officer (CECO) of Brown-Forman, said on his panel that his company did an extensive root cause analysis of every claim or incident so it can not only understand what happened but put sufficient risk management protections in place to try and make sure it does not happen again. 

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. Decisions on whom to discipline and when are critical decisions during any investigation.
  2. Take a case-by-case approach.
  3. The de-confliction question can be quite troubling during an internal investigation.

 Whom to suspend and when coupled with de-confliction are bedeviling issues in any internal investigation. 

Categories
Blog

Day 16 of One Month to Better Investigations and Reporting – Privacy Concerns in Internal Investigations

Schrems’ decision by the European Court of Justice, US-based law firms could rely on Safe Harbor to use and analyze information from investigations conducted in Europe. However, the Schrems decision and subsequent EU privacy rulings and regulations have brought the entire issue around internal investigations into question. In a podcast interview with UK solicitor and data privacy expert Jonathan Armstrong about the decision, Armstrong noted that the decision puts real roadblocks in the path of a US company that could be investigating potential anti-corruption allegations in the UK or EU member country. The biggest issue would be personal privacy and information. Unlike the US, work emails are covered by the privacy rights afforded to individuals and are not the company’s property. The same is true of other information. Under the Schrems decision, the ability of a US corporation to access that information and then take it back to the US under the safe harbor provision is no longer available. I asked Armstrong how a company might be able to move forward and internally investigate potential FCPA violations. Armstrong suggested that the only way at this point was to obtain the consent of the investigated person. However, obtaining such consent raises a host of other problems. He said, “Can I get consent for an internal investigation? Can I speak to my Austrian agent and say, “Peter, I just need you to sign this form to transfer your data to the US”? Now, for consent to be valid, the European legislation has to be fully explained, it has to be honest, and it can’t be deceptive. I’ve got to say to him, “I want you to sign this form because I want to investigate you. I want to run a full FCPA investigation; you’re the prime suspect. I want to take a look at your emails, and I have to inform you that you have the right not to consent, and if you don’t consent, there’s no way I can investigate you. Could you sign the form, please?” As Armstrong went on to note, “What answer is he likely to give in an internal investigation, and how would the US authorities feel if I go and tip off the main suspect that he’s under investigation?” With these two key components of any best practices compliance program, hotlines, and internal investigations, seemingly now unavailable to CCOs or compliance practitioners for EU-sourced information, I believe additional pressure will be put on the compliance function. Any US company with EU-based operations will have to take steps immediately to ring-fence such data originating in Europe. It may also mean locally based-compliance practitioners must head any inquiries. Moreover, if you couple this ruling in the Schrems decision with the Yates Memo, you immediately see the issue involved for any company seeking cooperation credit because such a company is required to turn over any information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as soon as possible. But now, even if companies can still develop facts and data through internal investigations, in the manner suggested by Pirrotta in using local law firms, you might not be able to get the information back to the US to use. Worse yet, is the option laid out by Armstrong to obtain consent from an investigation target? Not only do I find it improbable that anyone, European or otherwise, would give such consent, but in the unlikely event such consent is given, you have told the target they are the target, and other data sources might well begin to disappear. Armstrong put it starkly when he said, “you’re going to get no sympathy from the bribery prosecutors, bribery regulators if you mess this up. The SFO [Serious Fraud Office] allegedly lost the case on how the US firm involved conducted the investigation. They will have, rightly, I think, no sympathy at all for people whose investigations are themselves conducted unlawfully. It will need much careful thought to structure data transfers and interviews. How do you move those interview notes? How do you look at emails? All this stuff will be critical so that you don’t break data privacy data protection laws and tip off witnesses, you know, interfering with the scene of an investigation, et cetera, et cetera. All of these things are critical.” How does the Schrems decision contribute to compliance at the tipping point? If you can use two of the key components in a best practices compliance program; based upon the DOJ/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program or another standard, it will put significant pressure on other parts of the program. A compliance program will have to be structured more rigorously to prevent FCPA violations through internal controls and transaction monitoring tools. CCOs and compliance practitioners will also have to be more involved and have more visibility into the entire lifecycle of transactions so they can determine how to begin to move from even prevention to prescription of any FCPA violations. Just as the compliance world changed with the announcement of the Yates Memo, the DOJ Compliance Counsel, and the VW emissions-testing scandal, the Schrems decision will change the need for a more robust compliance program from now on to help protect a company. 

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. The Schrems decision significantly impacted US-based internal investigations.
  2. Study the privacy laws of the country where you are performing your investigation.
  3. Informed consent is difficult to obtain, but it may be critical for your investigation.

 Take care to protect privacy concerns when performing investigations outside the US.

Categories
Blog

Day 15 of One Month to Better Investigations and Reporting-the Parameters of Privileges

In the Evolving Attorney-Client Privilege: Business Entities”, David E. Keltner wrote that under US federal law, the attorney/client applies when the following are present:

  1. A client is seeking legal advice or a lawyer’s services;
  2. The person to whom the communication is made is a lawyer or his or her representative;
  3. The communication relates to a fact disclosed from a client (a representative) to a lawyer (a representative);
  4. Strangers are not present;
  5. A client requires confidentiality.

The significance of meeting each of these five prongs is critical. If they are met, “Absent privilege, once the attorney-client privilege is properly invoked – the privilege is absolute.” However, the failure to meet Prong 1 doomed former co-CEO Sigelman’s efforts, as he was not seeking legal advice. Former GC Weisman flew to Sigelman’s home to confront him over the fact that the FBI had come to his house asking questions about the payments made in Columbia. Finally, it is important to note that the attorney/client privilege belongs to the corporation and not to any one individual. The attorney/client privilege can be waived. While there is a general recognition that “only an authorized agent of a corporation may waive the privilege of the corporation,” Keltner advises that the “most frequently encountered instances of losing the privilege through selective disclosure” are in responding to a government investigation, supplying information to a government agency; information disclosed in certain Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings or other required financial disclosures; in certain circumstances disclosures to external corporate auditors or accounting responses; any disclosure made to a third party not affiliated with a lawyer; and insurance disclosures. How should we apply the above to the situation faced by former co-CEO Sigelman? Was he meeting with his lawyer or seeking legal advice? As reported by Joel Schectman in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), in an article entitled “Secret Informant Recordings to be Allowed in PetroTiger Case,” the trial court distinguished between having an attorney/client relationship from the attorney/client privilege. Schectman reported, “a judge in U.S. District Court in Camden said last week that having an attorney-client relationship isn’t enough to make all conversations privileged–a client needs to be actively seeking legal advice. “I cannot find a shred of indication that Weisman is there to give legal advice to Sigelman,” Judge Joseph Irenas said, “or the converse, that Sigelman was seeking legal advice from Weisman.” Interestingly the trial court did not opine on the question of who the client was in this situation. My experience is that most CEO-types think of a GC as their lawyer. That view is also misplaced as a GC works for a company, and the client is the corporation. While he did not have to reach the question of who the client was in the Sigelman/Weisman meeting, the trial court might have allowed the current corporate owners of PetroTiger to waive any privilege asserted by a former co-CEO. Schectman quoted G. Derek Andreson, a lawyer specializing in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, that “Attorney-client privilege is often misinterpreted as broader than it is.” Did the FBI take advantage of some special relationship between Sigelman and Weisman? As reported in the article, in his brief attempt to suppress the evidence, Sigelman’s counsel said, “Messrs. Sigelman and Weisman had a “long-standing attorney-client relationship, one that fostered candor and trust between them–as any good attorney-client relationship should. The government took advantage of this trust.” Such would seem to be the nature of wiring up cooperating witnesses; if they cannot engender trust with those they are speaking to and surreptitiously taping, it would seem they are of little use to authorities. For the attorney/client privilege to be of use to you, certain hard work must be done to establish the attorney/client privilege in the corporate context. The five prongs listed by Keltner must be fulfilled for the privilege to apply. Simply chatting with your lawyer or company’s lawyer will not invoke the privilege or protect you. In addition to the attorney/client privilege, another privilege can come into play around internal investigations. It is the attorney/work product privilege. Keltner noted, “The attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine are often asserted interchangeably. While there is some overlap between the two, the attorney-client privilege is significantly different from the attorney work-product doctrine.” Moreover, as “codified in Fed R.Civ. P. 26(b)(3), [the attorney/work product] provides a qualified protection to materials prepared by party’s counsel or other representatives in anticipation of litigation.” The doctrine exists “because it permits lawyers to “work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties . . .” The key is that it be prepared in anticipation of litigation. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, which belongs to a client, work-product immunity may be asserted by the lawyer or the client. While the attorney-client privilege is included in the Rules of Evidence, the work-product doctrine is included in the Rules of Civil Procedure in the series relating to discovery. This makes it problematic to assert in the context of a criminal investigation. For in-house lawyers in the UK or EU countries, however, there is no such work product privilege. Two recent examples highlighted this key difference between the US, UK, and EU legal systems. First was the raid by German prosecutors of Volkswagen’s outside counsel, Jones Day’s offices, for information surrounding the law firm’s investigation of the company’s emissions-testing scandal. The raid was based on a court-issued subpoena. The second is the recent judicial decision out of the UK involving Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. (ENRC). The UK’s highest court held that the company must produce to the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) documents the company claimed were privileged, including attorneys’ notes of employee interviews conducted during the company’s internal investigation. The SFO sought the documents as part of its criminal investigation into fraud, bribery, and corruption allegations. The court largely rejected ENRC’s claims of the work product privilege, holding that it does not apply when a document is not prepared for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting adversarial litigation. ENRC was required to produce the bulk of the contested documents because the investigation was a fact-finding exercise. 

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. Note the differences in the attorney/client and work product privileges.
  2. Both privileges can be waived intentionally or through negligent conduct.
  3. Take care of attorney work products outside the US, where there may be no privilege.

Remember who can assert privileges in an investigation and who can waive them. 

Categories
This Week in FCPA

This Week in FCPA-Episode 56

  • The Kokesh case at the US Supreme Court is significant for SEC enforcement of the FCPA around profit disgorgement. For what it means to the compliance practitioner, see Tom’s piece in the FCPA Compliance & Ethics Blog. For a legal review of the decision, see Miller & Chevalier client alert authored by Saskia Zandieh. Marc Bohn considered the case in the FCPA Blog. Marc and I discuss the case on the FCPA Compliance Report, Episode 332.
  • Trevor McFadden to leave the DOJ for federal bench. See article by Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance. Hui Chen’s contract not to be renewed, her position is posted for job applicants. Apply for the position here. Andrew Weissman leaves as head of the Fraud Section to go Special Prosecutor’s staff.
  • Former PetroTiger General Counsel Gregory Weismann is banned from SEC practice. See article in the FCPA Blog.
  • Matthew Stephenson considers what a Wal-Mart settlement might look like. See his article in the Global Anti-Corruption Blog.
  • The federal judge who sentenced Samuel Mebiame, the bag man for Och-Ziff; criticized the DOJ for its lack of prosecution of any individuals from the company. See article by Sam Rubenfeld in WSJ Risk and Compliance Report.
  • Jay previews his weekend report.
  • Tom continues to talk about the release of his new book 2016 – The Year in Corporate FCPA Enforcement. For more information and to purchase, click here.

    •  
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3kx” float=”none”]
    When do Mike & Mike agree on anything? Find out on This Week in FCPA. [/tweet_box]
    Jay Rosen can be reached:
    Mobile (310) 729-6746
    Toll Free (866)-201-0903
    JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    Tom Fox can be reached:
    Phone: 832-744-0264
    Email: tfox@tfoxlaw.com]]>

    Categories
    Uncategorized

    FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 332, Marc Bohn on the Kokesh Decision

    Kokesh v. SEC, the US Supreme Court held the profit disgorgements operate as a penalty under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. As such “any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.” The position of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at the Supreme Court and in all other matters involving this issue was that profit disgorgement were not punitive, hence not a penalty but rather remedial in nature so the SEC could clawback all monies generated as a result of the illegal action. The decision, authored by Justice Sotomayor, was a 9-0 opinion which in the rarified world of Supreme Court decisions is about as clear a message as one can get. The Court first determined that profit disgorgement met the definition of a “penalty” under two basis, “First, whether a sanction represents a penalty turns in part on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual.” Second, a pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty if it is sought “for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner” rather than to compensate victims.” [citations omitted] Thus, if a statute provided a compensatory remedy for a private wrong, it should not be characterized as penalty. For additional thoughts from Marc, see his piece on the FCPA Blog. For additional thoughts from myself, see my piece on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog. [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3kd” float=”none”]The Kokesh decision has significant implications for FCPA enforcement going forward.[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    Everything Compliance

    Everything Compliance-Episode 10, first 100 day of the Trump Administration

    This episode is dedicated to the chaotic (at best) first 100 days of the Trump administration related to compliance.

    1. Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion of the Trump administration’s devolution of Privacy Shield, GDPR, and what they mean for American companies doing business in the UK and EU. He discusses the key differences in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in an FCPA analysis and under the Bribery Act, differences in the EU approach to conflict minerals, and under the Trump Administration, and concludes by giving us his thoughts on what Brexit means for compliance.

    For the Cordery Compliance client alerts, see the following:
    EU conflicts minerals compliance legislation 
    DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance: how does it compare to UK Bribery Act 2010?
    BREXIT Glossary

    1. Jay Rosen considers what companies the intersection of business and politics under the Trump administration, the business response he has observed to Trump administrations steps and miss-steps, the comments made by DOJ representatives at Q1 conferences, and the vibe of compliance conference attendees.

    For Jay’s posts, see,
     Still in the Enforcement Business and Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs
    “It Was the Best of Times, It was the Worst of Times,” or “Ignorance is Strength”
     Matt Kelly opens with a discussion of regulatory enforcement under the Trump administration, how the ‘Trump Effect’ is negatively impacting corporations, and industry responses to deregulation issues and lays down some markers around compliance issues under the new administration.
    For Matt Kelly’s posts, see:
    Compliance in the Trump Era: More Markers Placed
    Trump Administration Whacks Telco Firm for $892 Million
    Drone Industry Pan Trump’s Regulatory
    Trump Risk Disclosures Start Rolling In
    First SEC Whistleblower Award of the Trump Era
    Sessions Dodges, Weaves, Promises on FCPA

    1. Mike Volkov rounds out the discussion with a review of where the DOJ is currently under AG Sessions, remarks by DOJ officials on FCPA enforcement, the future of the Pilot Program, and DOJ Compliance Counsel Hui Chen.

    For Mike Volkov’s posts, see the following:
    Yates, AG Sessions and Individual Criminal Prosecutions
    New E-Book — Moving the Goalposts: The Justice Department Redefines Effective Compliance
    FCPA Remediation Focus on Supervisory Personnel
    FPCA Pilot Program Motors On
    For Tom Fox’s posts on the Trump administration’s first 100 days, see the following:
    The Trump Administration-Kaos is Bad for Business
    The Trump Administration-Failures in Leadership and Management
    The Trump Administration-Preparing for a Catastrophe
    The Trump Administration-the Business Response
    DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA and the International Fight against Corruption in the Trump Administration
    The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:

    • Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    • Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
    • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of Compliance Week. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
    • Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out the panel is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com

    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3eF” float=”none”]What has the Trump effect meant for FCPA? The experts weigh in.[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    Everything Compliance

    Everything Compliance – Episode 10, first 100 days of the Trump Administration

    • Jonathan Armstrong discusses the Trump administration’s devolution of Privacy Shield, GDPR, and what they mean for American companies doing business in the UK and EU. He discusses the key differences in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in an FCPA analysis, under the Bribery Act, in the EU approach to conflict minerals, and under the Trump Administration. He concludes by giving us his thoughts on what Brexit means for compliance.

    For the Cordery Compliance client, alerts see the following: EU conflicts minerals compliance legislation  DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance: how does it compare to UK Bribery Act 2010? BREXIT Glossary

    1. Jay Rosen considers what companies the intersection of business and politics under the Trump administration, the business response he has observed to Trump administrations steps and miss-steps, the comments made by DOJ representatives at Q1 conferences, and the vibe of compliance conference attendees.

    For Jay’s posts, see,  Still, in the Enforcement Business and Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs “It Was the Best of Times, It was the Worst of Times,” or “Ignorance is Strength” Matt Kelly opens with a discussion of regulatory enforcement; under the Trump administration, how the ‘Trump Effect’ is negatively impacting corporations, industry responses to deregulation issues and lays down some markers around compliance issues under the new administration. For Matt Kelly’s posts, see Compliance in the Trump Era: More Markers Placed Trump Administration Whacks Telco Firm for $892 Million Drone Industry Pan Trump’s Regulatory Trump Risk Disclosures Start Rolling In First SEC Whistleblower Award of Trump Era Sessions Dodges, Weaves, Promises on FCPA.

    1. Mike Volkov rounds out the discussion with a review of where the DOJ is currently under AG Sessions, remarks by DOJ officials on FCPA enforcement, the future of the Pilot Program, and DOJ Compliance Counsel Hui Chen.

    For Mike Volkov’s posts, see the following: Yates, AG Sessions and Individual Criminal Prosecutions New E-Book — Moving the Goalposts: The Justice Department Redefines Effective Compliance FCPA Remediation Focus on Supervisory Personnel FPCA Pilot Program Motors On For Tom Fox’s posts on the Trump administration’s first 100 days see the following: The Trump Administration-Kaos is Bad for Business The Trump Administration-Failures in Leadership and Management The Trump Administration-Preparing for a Catastrophe The Trump Administration-the Business Response DOJ Enforcement of the FCPA and the International Fight against Corruption in the Trump Administration The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:

    • Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com.
    • Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
    • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of Compliance Week. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com.
    • Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out the panel is our UK colleague, an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com.
    Categories
    This Week in FCPA

    This Week in FCPA-Episode 49, the DisneyWorld Ethics Edition


    In this episode, Jay Rosen returns from a week’s trip to Walt Disney World. Jay and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top compliance related stories. We discuss:

    1. DOJ Criminal Division’s Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General remarks on the FCPA and its enforcement. – See text of speech by clicking here. See Matt Kelly’s blog post by clicking here.
    2. Whistleblowers in the news. See Tom’s article on the Barclay’s CEO and Amtrust in FCPA Blog and on KPMG in Compliance Week. Mike Volkov weighs on whistleblowing as indicia of corporate culture here.
    3. One year reports note that declinations are on the rise under the on the now one-year old FCPA Pilot Program. For Miller & Chevalier report click here (sub. req’d). For the Stanford University FCPA Clearinghouse Report in the Wall Street Journal, click here.
    4. Tribute to Kara Brockmeyer, retiring as head of the SEC’s FCPA Unit. See Tom’s article in Compliance Week.
    5. Jay details his upcoming conference schedule and weekend report on ethics and compliance observations from the Florida version of the Magic Kingdom.
    6. Listeners to this podcast can received a discount to Compliance Week 2017. Go to registration and enter discount code CW17TOMFOX.

    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3dv” float=”none”]Check out the top weekly podcast in compliance-This Week in FCPA.[/tweet_box]]]>

    Categories
    This Week in FCPA

    This Week in FCPA-Episode 46, the On the Rode to Prague Edition

  • Why powerful people fail to stop bad behavior by their underlings. Click here for the article.
  • Some policy management lesson, courtesy United Airlines. Click here for Matt Kelly’s article on Radical Compliance.
  • Why you shouldn’t linger too long in the wrong compliance position. See Julie DiMauro’s blog post on the FCPA Blog.
  • Bribe recipient in the Gerald and Patricia Green FCPA case gets 50 years in prison. See article in the FCPA Blog.
  • Using data to operationalize your compliance program. Read Tom’s blog post, by clicking here.
  • What the New York state Department of Financial Services new regulation on cybersecurity for financial services companies means for compliance officers. See Tom’s blog post by clicking here.
  • Jay previews his weekend report.

    • Jay Rosen new contact information:
    Jay Rosen, CCEP
    Vice President, Business Development
    Monitoring Specialist
    Affiliated Monitors, Inc.
    Mobile (310) 729-6746
    Toll Free (866)-201-0903
    JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
    [tweet_box design=”default” url=”http://wp.me/p6DnMo-3aD” float=”none”]How can the use of data help to operationalize your compliance program?[/tweet_box]]]>