Tag: BOD

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: What is Driving Compliance Engagement at the Board?

The award-winning, Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, going into the weeds to explore a subject more fully and looking for some hard-hitting insights on sanctions compliance. Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds!

In this episode, co-hosts Tom Fox and Matt Kelly dissect the Navex 2023 State of Risk and Compliance Report. Tom and Matt delve into Navex’s annual benchmarking report, which surveyed 1,300 compliance professionals. The report revealed that 53% of respondents described their compliance programs as mature. Matt and Tom question whether the board is driving the conversation or if compliance officers request updates due to potential liability. The report’s findings on cybersecurity and privacy concerns, survey results on where compliance should reside in a company, and the importance of having a mature anti-bribery anti-corruption compliance program are all discussed. Tune in to hear more about how compliance officers can address pressing concerns such as cybersecurity breaches and attacks.

Key Highlights:

  • Navex’s benchmark report on compliance programs
  • Board-Compliance Officer Relationship & Cybersecurity in Compliance
  • The necessity of Dedicated Compliance Committees
  • Survey Finds Diverse Views on Compliance Placement in Companies
  • The Importance of Anti-Bribery Compliance for Cybersecurity
  • Compliance Officer Reporting to CISO Dynamics

 Resources:

Matt 

LinkedIn

Blog Post in Radical Compliance

Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – Three Areas of Board Inquiry

Directors should focus on three core areas to help establish and maintain an effective compliance program: structure, culture, and risk management.

Structural questions. This area consists of questions that will aid in determining the fundamental sense of a company’s overall compliance program. The questions should begin with the basics of the program through to how the program operates in action.

Cultural questions. This area of inquiry should focus on the organization’s culture regarding compliance. Board members should understand what message senior management and middle management communicate. Equally important, the Board needs to understand what message is being heard at the lowest levels within the company.

Risk management questions. Board members need to understand the company’s process being used to identify emerging risks, their evaluation, and management. Such risk analysis would be broader than simply a compliance risk assessment and should be tied to other broader corporate matters.

Three key takeaways:

  1. A Board of Directors should inquire into the structural component of the compliance program as it will aid in determining the fundamental sense of a company’s overall compliance program.
  2. Cultural questions should be asked to understand what message is being communicated by senior and middle management.
  3. Risk management questions should be asked to understand the company’s process being used to identify emerging risks, their evaluation, and management.
Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Building a Stronger Culture of Compliance Through Targeted and Effective Training: Part 5 – The Role of the Board

Welcome to a special 5 part podcast series on building a stronger culture of compliance through targeted and effective training, sponsored by Diligent. Over this series, I will visit with Kunal Agrawal, Director of Customer Success at Diligent; Kevin McCoy, Customer Success Manager at Diligent; Jessica Czeczuga, Director, Compliance and Ethics at Diligent; Andrew Rincón, Client Director at Diligent; and David Greenberg, former CEO and Special Advisor at LRN and Director at International Seaways. Over this series, we will consider the importance of ongoing communications, the value of targeted training, training third parties, and the role of the Board of Directors. In this concluding Part 5, we consider the role of the Board of Directors in a compliance program with David Greenberg.

In this episode, Greenberg discusses the board’s legal obligations, emphasizing their duty to exercise reasonable oversight over potential misconduct and failures of compliance with law and policy. The podcast also delves into the importance of integrating compliance programs into a company’s overall strategy and developing strong relationships with senior management, such as the chief legal officer or chief compliance officer. Listeners will learn the importance of finding the right committee to oversee compliance obligations and utilizing outside experts for insight and guidance. This conversation is essential for board members and executives who want to ensure accountability, initiate change, and drive organizational success. Don’t miss out on this informative and engaging episode of “The Role of the Board” episode.

Key Highlights:

  • Legal obligations and oversight for corporate boards
  • Importance of integrating compliance into the company culture
  • Board Oversight and Relationship Building with CCO
  • The Significance of Outside Perspectives for Boards

Notable Quotes:

“There is a strong obligation on boards to exercise reasonable oversight over all potential misconduct and failures of compliance law and policy should a reasonable board has known and taken steps…should that body have known and should it have done more than it did.”

“Boards principally should be asking tough questions and following up on those questions.”

“Anything that is not integrated into the real levers and machinery of the business will not be successful.”

“That chief compliance officer who knows the head of the audit committee or compliance committee or governance committee is much more able and comfortable picking up the phone and saying to the chair, Houston, we’ve got a problem.”

For more information go to Diligent.com

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – The Board Role in Hiring

What is the role of a Board of Directors in hiring senior executives, CCOs, and even other board members? I explored this issue with Candice Tal, who began by noting, that bad senior executive hires can cost a company much more than simply dollars. She related, the “financial costs in day-to-day operations easily can quadruple that of a regular employee, but it can also impact the company’s corporate governance and board of directors if that executive hire was found to be involved with unethical and illegal activities. Not even a signed contract can protect a company if an executive hire’s unethical actions come to the attention of the national media. Fiduciary risk and exposure for the board of directors cannot be overlooked.”

She pointed to the example of Yahoo! and its hire of Scott Thompson. It turned out that Thompson had incorrect information in his online biography regarding his academic credentials. The “implications went beyond the activist shareholder accusations to reflect on the Board of Directors for not vetting his background more carefully. The company may have been exposed to claims of providing false information to the SEC and potential stockholder lawsuits. Thompson’s 120-day tenure at Yahoo! cost the company over $7 million and seriously tarnished the company’s reputation in the business community.”

The key is that a company engages in an executive due diligence investigation rather than simply a routine or even executive-level background investigation. Tal explained that an executive background search is “typically limited to a five-component review of criminal records, employment verification, degree or education verification, social security validation, address verification and sometimes credit history.” Such searches are “very limited searches.”

Conversely, executive due diligence, “looks in-depth at all available public records sources: criminal history, civil litigation issues, financial and legal issues, relationships with other companies and board advisory positions, reputation, misrepresented education and overstated work history, behavioral history (for example litigiousness), and, in particular, undisclosed or adverse issues.” While it is generally “more costly than executive background checks and takes more time, the information gathered is extremely valuable and can save a company substantially more. A high-quality due diligence review can find important information which would not be returned in a routine executive background check.”

Infortal has found that up to 20% of executive search candidates fail a deep-level due diligence investigation. Now consider how many senior executive slots your company has and add to that Board of Directors seats and you can quickly see the risk of failure to consider an executive due diligence search when promoting or hiring. Moreover, you need executive-level due diligence in other business situations as well, including the senior management of new business acquisitions brought into your organization through a merger or other acquisition, selecting new Board members, screening the corporate Board of Directors, and of course, for third party business partners and other agents in the sales and supply chain channels. 

Three key takeaways:

  1. The costs of a bad executive hire can far exceed the dollar loss.
  2. Do not forget the differences between an executive background check and executive level due diligence.
  3. 20% of all senior executives fail an executive level due diligence check.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available here.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – Boards and Doing Business in China

The Administration’s trade war with China has highlighted the risks of both doing business in China and investing in the Chinese companies which come to America to raise capital. Yet this has been a long-known and outstanding problem in the anti-corruption enforcement world. The 2014 bribery and corruption case of GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK), which resulted in a $490 million fine for the firm, resonated across the corporate globe. While many questions are still unanswered, one that seems to be at the forefront of the inquiry was where was the GSK Board of Directors. This matter demonstrates that the role of a Board of Directors is becoming more important and more of a critical part of any effective compliance program.

In an NACD Directorship article, entitled “Corruption in China and Elsewhere Demands Board Oversight”, Eric V. Zwisler and Dean A. Yoost note, “Boards are ultimately responsible for risk oversight” any Board of a company with operations in China “needs to have a clear understanding of its duties and responsibilities under the FCPA and other international laws, such as the U.K. Bribery Act”. Why should China be on the radar of Boards? From 2010-2019, over 25% of all FCPA enforcement actions derived from China, that’s why.

FCPA enforcement actions have made clear that numerous Chinese businesses have proven adept at appearing compliant while hiding unacceptable business practices. A Board should be aware that a well-crafted compliance program must be complemented with a thorough understanding of frontline business practices and constant auditing of actual practices, not just a paper compliance program. This means that both monitoring and auditing should be visible to the Board.

Three key takeaways:

  1. China presents the highest FCPA risk and after GSK, domestic law corruption risk as well.
  2. Chinese companies have been adept at hiding corrupt business practices from their western owners.
  3. A Board must be cognizant of these risks and enhance their risk management process in China and other high-risk jurisdictions.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available here.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – Board Failures

Next, consider a couple of landmark failures at the Board level around bribery and corruption.

VimpelCom Ltd. In 2015 (now Veon Ltd.), the DOJ alleged that Dutch telecom VimpelCom sought to enter the telecom market through the acquisition of a local player, Unitel, as an entrée into the Uzbekistan market. Unitel made clear to VimpelCom that to have access to, obtain, and retain business in the Uzbeki telecom space, VimpelCom would have to, according to the DPA, “regularly pay Foreign Officials millions of dollars” to Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the then President of the country. VimpelCom also acquired another entity Butzel, that was at least partially owned by an Uzbeki government official, who hid their interest through a shell company, which was known to VimpelCom. VimpelCom did not articulate a legitimate business reason for the deal and paid $60 million for Buztel.

Ultimately, VimpelCom agreed to pay approximately $800 million in fines for these activities in 2016. 

BizJet. Another FCPA enforcement action involved the Tulsa-based company BizJet International Sales and Support Inc. (BizJet), which had four senior executives convicted for their participation in a bribery scheme. But this case also involved the Board of Directions. In the Criminal Information, it stated that in November 2005:

…at a Board of Directors meeting of the BizJet Board, Executive A, and Executive B discussed with the Board that the decision of where an aircraft is sent for maintenance work is generally made by the potential customer’s director of maintenance or chief pilot, that these individuals are demanding $30,000 to $40,000 in commissions, and that BizJet would pay referral fees in order to gain market share.

In both cases, this is where the rubber hits the road. If a company is willing to commit bribery and engage in corruption to secure business, no amount of doing compliance is going to help. If senior management is ready, willing, and able to lie, cheat and steal, the Board is the final backstop to prevent such conduct. Both the VimpelCom and BizJet Boards sorely failed in their compliance duties.  

Three key takeaways:

  1. Board liability will be severe based upon similar conduct going forward.
  2. Board members must critically challenge management on its conduct.
  3. The Board is the ultimate backstop against bribery and corruption.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available here.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – Key Board Metrics for Compliance

What are metrics for a Board of Directors around compliance? Former Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell laid out some that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would consider in a review of compliance programs. These metrics are:

  • Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers provide strong, explicit, and visible support for its corporate compliance policies?
  • Does the Board maintain a material role in overseeing a company’s overall compliance framework?

These requirements move beyond simply having the correct tone at the top, which every Board should articulate. The 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs added the following, under Oversight by posing the following questions: What compliance expertise has been available on the board of directors? Have the board of directors and/or external auditors held executive or private sessions with the compliance and control functions? What types of information has the board of directors and senior management examined in their exercise of oversight in the area in which the misconduct occurred?

Based on the foregoing, when determining the Board’s role, begin with two questions. First, does the Board of Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? Second, is the Board of Directors provided information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment?

Three key takeaways:

  1. The DOJ expects active engagement by a Board around compliance.
  2. Does the Board exercise independent review of the compliance program?
  3. The convergence of the Yates Memo, Caldwell’s metrics, the Evaluation, and FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy mandate Board metrics around compliance.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available here.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

What Leads to a Successful Board Investigation?

Many companies have an investigation protocol in place when a potential Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) or other legal issue arises. However, many Boards of Directors do not have the same rigor when it comes to an investigation, which should be conducted or led by the Board itself. The consequences of this lack of foresight can be problematic because if a Board of Directors does not get an investigation, which it handles right, the consequences to the company, its reputation, and value can all be quite severe.

In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations”; David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, wrote about five key goals that any investigation led by a Board of Directors must meet.

  • Consider whether you need independent outside counsel.
  • Consider hiring an experienced investigator to lead the internal investigation.
  • Consider the need to retain outside experts.
  • Analyze potential conflicts of interest at the outset and during the investigation.
  • Carefully evaluate whistleblower allegations.
  • Request regular updates from outside counsel, without limiting the investigation.
  • Consider whether an oral report at the conclusion of the investigation is sufficient.

The authors conclude their piece by stating, “By keeping in mind the issues addressed above, the Board will be better prepared for the investigation and readily able to exercise good judgment throughout the review. A well-conducted investigation by the Board may spare the company further disruption and costs associated with follow-on investigations by the regulators, or at the very least minimize the company’s exposure.”

Three key takeaways:

  1. Retain the right counsel. Consider conflicts and appearance.
  2. Carefully evaluate all whistleblower allegations and reject retaliation.
  3. Consider receiving oral reports on an ongoing basis and one lengthy oral report at the end of the investigation.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available here.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – What Is Your Board’s Investigation Protocol

Many companies have an investigation protocol in place when a potential Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) or other legal issue arises. However, many Boards of Directors do not have the same rigor when it comes to an investigation, which should be conducted or led by the Board itself. The consequences of this lack of foresight can be problematic because if a Board of Directors does not get an investigation, which it handles right, the consequences to the company, its reputation, and value can all be quite severe.

In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations”; David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, wrote about five key goals that any investigation led by a Board of Directors must meet.

They are:

    • Thoroughness – The authors believe that one of the key, and most critical, questions that any regulator might pose is just how thorough is an investigation; to test whether they can rely on the facts discovered without hav­ing to repeat the investigation themselves. Regulators tend to be skeptical of investigations where limits are placed (expressly or otherwise) on the investigators, in terms of what is investigated, or how the investigation is conducted. This question can be an initial deal-killer particularly if the regulator involved views an investigation insuf­ficiently thorough, its credibility is undermined. And, of course, it can lead to the dreaded ‘Where else’ question.
    • Objectivity – Here the authors write that any “investigation must follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of the conse­quences. This includes how the findings may impact senior management or other company employees. An investigation seen as lacking objectivity will be viewed by outsiders as inadequate or deficient.” I would add that in addition to the objectivity required in the investigation, the same must be had with the investigators themselves. If a company uses its regular outside counsel, it may be viewed with some askance, particularly if the client is a high-volume client of the law firm involved, either in dollar amounts or in several matters handled by the firm.
    • Accuracy – As in any part of, a best practices anti-corruption compliance program, the three most important things are Document, Document, and Document. This means that the factual findings of an investiga­tion must be well supported. For if the developed facts are not well supported, the authors believe that the investigation is “open to collateral attack by skeptical prosecutors and regulators. If that happens, the time and money spent on the internal investigation will have been wasted, because the government will end up conducting its investigation of the same issues.” This is never good and your company may well lose what little credibility and goodwill that it may have engendered by self-reporting or self-investigating.
    • Timeliness – Certainly in the world of FCPA enforcement, an internal investigation should be done quickly. This has become even more necessary with the tight deadlines set under the Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower provisions. But there are other considerations for a public company such as an impending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quarterly or annual report that may need to be deferred absent as a timely resolution of the matter. Lastly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) or SEC may view delaying an investigation as simply a part of document spoliation. So timeliness is crucial.
    • Credibility – One of the realities of any FCPA investigation is that a Board of Directors-led investigation is reviewed after the fact by not only skeptical third parties but also sometimes years after the initial events and investigation. So not only is there the opportunity for Monday-Morning Quarterbacking but quite a bit of post-event analysis. So the authors believe that any Board of Directors-led investigation “must be (and must be perceived as) credible as to what was done, how it was done, and who did it. Otherwise, the board’s work will have been for naught.”

    Three Key Takeaways

    1. The Board should have a written protocol for investigations prepared in advance.
    2. This gives cover to a Board when regulators come knocking or other third parties seek review.
    3. Remember the 5 goals of any Board led investigation.

     

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards – Board Governance and Risk Oversight

One of the ongoing questions from members of the Board of Directors is how to resolve the tension between oversight and management. I recently had the opportunity to visit with Joe Howell, former Executive Vice President (EVP) of Workiva, Inc., on this subject. Howell has worked on and with Boards of Directors at various companies, and I wanted to garner his understanding of the role of a Board, senior management, and a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO). Howell’s short response was an excellent starting point for understanding the role; put sand in management’s shoes.

The key to such a metaphor succeeding is that a Board of Directors, “by continuing to challenge management on these scenarios that management has considered and the stories management is telling itself about what could go wrong,” can “help get management out of its comfort zone by and large executive teams begin to believe themselves when they talk about how well they’re doing. The independent challenge that the board can offer is putting a little bit of sand in the shoe to make sure you’re thinking about things carefully can cause you to step back and focus your resources where they’re needed.”

Howell noted that the role of the Board is not management but oversight, focusing on governance. To do so, an effective Board should challenge senior management not only on what they have planned for but what they may not have considered or may not even know about. He said, “One perfect example is the reputation of those stakeholders involved in the company, and that can be the management team itself, the employees, and the board members themselves.” This is because reputational damage hurts everyone. Howell stated, “It’s essential as we go through some ways the Board can help management in that role. I think the things that make a difference to management is when the Board can be an effective devil’s advocate. Not managing management but helping them in their governing role by helping management to step back and think critically of their underlying assumptions and biases.”

A Board is more than just there to be a rubber stamp for senior management. It must exercise independent judgment, action, and oversight. Further, it is the Board’s role to ask hard, difficult, and probing questions to ensure management is doing its job and has considered other risk possibilities.

Three Key Takeaways:

  1. Boards should force management to open up the company to itself.
  2. Boards should be a grain of sand in the shoe of management.
  3. Boards should ensure senior management is aware of and planning for known and unknown risks.