Tag: Caremark

Categories
Blog

The World Has Changed: McDonald’s and the Oversight Duty of Officers-Part 4

Over the past year, the role of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) has shifted in some very dramatic ways. The shifts have been from disparate groups and for a variety of reasons. Yet when put together, one can see a clear and bright line expanding and elevating the role of the CCO in the corporate world. From the announcement of the requirement for CCO Certification last year up to the announcement of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the case of In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, it is now clear that the CCO has as wide a remit and responsibility as any corporate officer, other than the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company.

I think the following announcements, changes in DOJ and SEC focus on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement and now a court case out of Delaware will change the role of the CCO forever.

CCO Certification

This shift began with the speech by Kenneth Polite, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division speech on May 17, 2022, at Compliance Week 2022; announcing the new requirement for CCO Certification of compliance programs for companies going through a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). This CCO Certification required the Glencore CCO to certify Glencore compliance program “is reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws” at the conclusion of the DPA.  Who is the only other person required to make a similar certification at the conclusion of a DPA? The CEO of the company.

This means the CCO (and CEO) are certifying the entire compliance program meets the standards of not simply best practices but also all the enhanced requirements set out in Attachment C of any DPA. While many have focused on the question of whether this would bring criminal liability to a long-gone (or even current) CCO; this question now seems to miss the mark. Recall what Polite said when announcing the new requirement “It is the type of resource that compliance officials, including myself, have wanted for some time, because it makes it clear that you should and must have appropriate stature in corporate decision-making. It is intended to empower our compliance professionals to have the data, access, and voice within the organization to ensure you, and us, that your company has an ethical and compliance focused environment.”

Monaco Memo and Changes in the Corporate Enforcement Policy

The 2022 Monaco Memo and 2023 announced changes in the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) are bookends of a series of changes which began as far back as October 2021 when Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco first announced the revisions which would eventually be incorporated into the Monaco Memo and CEP. In many ways the Monaco Memo laid out the sticks while the CEP provided the carrots for current FCPA and other white-collar enforcements.

The Monaco Memo directed prosecutors to evaluate a corporation’s compliance program as a factor in determining the appropriate terms for a corporate resolution; as prosecutors should now assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at two points in time: (1) the time of the offense; and (2) the time of a charging decision.  Kenneth Polite further defined the effectiveness of a compliance program at the time of the offense as “At the time of the misconduct and the disclosure, the company had an effective compliance program and system of internal accounting controls that allowed the identification of the misconduct and led to the company’s self-disclosure.” This is the first time the DOJ has said that it is the detection of wrongdoing which defines the effectiveness of a compliance program. This means a company’s investment in a compliance program, CCO and corporate compliance team are all elevated in importance. This prong does not simply get you a discount, but it can put you on the road to the default position of the DOJ for a FCPA violation, a declination.

Moreover, when you couple the ABB FCPA resolution to the Monaco Memo, you see the carrots which appeared in the new CEP. ABB was the first, three-time FCPA recidivist yet was able to get an excellent resolution with the government and a fine of only $315 million despite clear aggravating factors including corruption up to and in the corporate office. From the ABB resolution, you begin to see how the role of the CCO increases dramatically.

Duty of Oversight

These trends were brought together in the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the case of McDonald’s Corporation and its former Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s Corporation, David Fairhurst in the case In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, where for the first time, a Delaware court formally recognized the oversight duties of officers of Delaware corporations.

As I have previously noted, one of the most interesting parts of the court’s opinion is that it draws from the US Sentencing Guidelines and their creation of the Chief Compliance Officer position as both reasons for the decision and as a guide to how the CCO position will be impacted by this ruling. The judge pointed to the US Sentencing Guidelines as a key basis for the creation of the original Caremark Doctrine. The court stated that a prime reason for “recognizing the board’s duty of oversight was the importance of having compliance systems in place so the corporation could receive credit under the federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines.” However, the Guidelines did not stop at the board level. The US Sentencing Guidelines mandated the creation of the CCO position.

The court noted that the CCO has a broad scope within an organization. The court stated “Although the CEO and Chief Compliance Officer likely will have company-wide oversight portfolios, other officers generally have a more constrained area of authority.” The responsibilities of the CCO are wide and sometimes varied. Here the court stated, ““[s]pecific individual(s) within the organization shall be delegated day-to-day operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program. Individual(s) with operational responsibility shall report periodically to high-level personnel and, as appropriate, to the governing authority, or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority, on the effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.” But the Delaware court also provided CCOs with some additional ammunition in their quest for true influence in a corporation by stating that “to carry out such operational responsibility, such individual(s) shall be given adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority.”

What Does It Mean?

This is the part where it gets interesting. Under the CCO Certification and the Delaware court’s ruling, it is the CCO who is 1B to the CEO’s 1A. The first step every company must make it to put the CCO in position to report up directly to the Board of Directors. It also means that the days of a CCO reporting to a Chief Legal Officer (CLO) or General Counsel (GC) are certainly numbered. The Delaware Court drove this point home by specifically naming  a CLO/GC as a person “responsible for legal oversight and for making a good faith effort to establish reasonable information systems to cover that area.” In other words, not responsible for the company wide remit such as the CCO.

The next area would come from the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as laid out in the FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition. In that document it states “In appraising a compliance program, DOJ and SEC also consider whether a company has assigned responsibility for the oversight and implementation of a company’s compliance program to one or more specific senior executives within an organization. Those individuals must have appropriate authority within the organization, adequate autonomy from management, and sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively.” That means financial resources and head count.

I would add, a level of professionalism and expertise in compliance means more than simply ‘being a lawyer’. Under Chapter 9, Section 47 of the US Attorney’s Manual, the DOJ is mandated to evaluate “The quality and experience of the personnel involved in compliance, such that they can understand and identify the transactions and activities that pose a potential risk.”  Finally, the DOJ will also evaluate other factors such as CCO compensataion as commiserate with the position of being second in importance to the CEO.

The Delaware Court decision creating the Duty of Oversight was not designed to increase the scope, reach and importance of a CCO but the more I look at the case I believe that will be its most lasting legacy. When you look back over the past 12 months, you see that the CCO has more stature and responsibility than it has ever had before.

With a converse nod to Uncle Ben from Spiderman, with great responsibility must come great power.

Categories
Blog

The World Has Changed: McDonald’s and the Oversight Duty of Officers-Part 3

This week, we are exploring a shift in the duties of care owed by corporate officers to the corporation. This shift is coming through the Chancery Court of Delaware in the case of McDonald’s Corporation and its former Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s Corporation, David Fairhurst and his part in the creation of an absolute toxic atmosphere of sexual harassment at the very highest levels of the organization. The case is styled In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, and in it, the court formally recognizes the oversight duties of officers of Delaware corporations. Today we discuss the role of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) in both the reasoning for the decision and what it means for CCOs going forward.

Perhaps one of the most interesting parts of the court’s opinion is that it draws from the US Sentencing Guidelines and their creation of the Chief Compliance Officer position as both reasons for the decision and as a guide to how the CCO position will be impacted by this ruling. The judge pointed to the US Sentencing Guidelines as a key basis for the creation of the original Caremark Doctrine. The court stated that a key reason for “recognizing the board’s duty of oversight was the importance of having compliance systems in place so the corporation could receive credit under the federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines.” However, the Guidelines did not stop at the board level. The US Sentencing Guidelines mandated the creation of the CCO position.

Specifically, the “Guidelines state that “[h]igh- level personnel of the organization shall ensure that the organization has an effective compliance and ethics program” and such senior person(s) “be assigned overall responsibility for the compliance and ethics program.” The Guidelines went on to define an organization’s “high-level personnel” as “individuals who have substantial control over the organization or who have a substantial role in the making of policy within the organization,” which includes “a director; an executive officer; an individual in charge of a major business or functional unit of the organization, such as sales, administration, or finance; and an individual with a substantial ownership interest.”

The court somewhat dryly concluded “It would seem hard to argue that, simply by virtue of being an officer, the Chief Compliance Officer could not owe a duty of oversight. That, however, is the logical implication of Fairhurst’s position that only directors can owe a duty of oversight.”

The responsibilities of the CCO are wide and sometimes varied. Here the court stated, ““[s]pecific individual(s) within the organization shall be delegated day-to-day operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program. Individual(s) with operational responsibility shall report periodically to high-level personnel and, as appropriate, to the governing authority, or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority, on the effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.” But the Delaware court also provided CCOs with some additional ammunition in their quest for true influence in a corporation by stating that “to carry out such operational responsibility, such individual(s) shall be given adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority.”

Finally, the CCO has a broad scope within an organization. Indeed the court noted, that only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has as broad a remit, stating “Although the CEO and Chief Compliance Officer likely will have company-wide oversight portfolios, other officers generally have a more constrained area of authority. With a constrained area of responsibility comes a constrained version of the duty that supports an Information-Systems Claim.”

Yet the breadth of this portfolio does not mean a CCO can be liable for every corporate failure, even those directly in culture or compliance. Here the standard of liability for the CCO is critical and standard is breach of the duty of loyalty through bad faith. The court noted, that in the decision of Stone v. Ritter, upholding the original Caremark decision, “the Delaware Supreme Court adopted the Guttman formulation and stated that a breach of the duty of loyalty, such as acting in bad faith, was a “necessary condition to liability.” After Stone, then-Vice Chancellor Strine acknowledged that Caremark duties carried overtones of care, but explained that “to hold directors liable for a failure in monitoring, the directors have to have acted with a state of mind consistent with a conscious decision to breach their duty of care.”

Rarely, if ever do you see a CCO engage in bad faith. There have been some instances but I can think or only one or two that rise to the level of bad faith. The good news for CCOs is that while there may be a new cause of action against them for a duty of oversight; if there is a compliance program in place and if that compliance program detects wrongdoing which is reported up to the Board; a CCO has most probably met their duty under this decision.

Please join me tomorrow as I explore how this court decision, together with the CCO certification mandate by the Department of Justice, the Monaco Memo and the new Corporate Enforcement Policy will all change the relationships and dynamics of Chief Compliance Officers in the corporate world.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

McDonald’s and Duty of Corporate Officer Oversight

The award-winning, Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore a subject more fully. In this episode, Matt and I dive deep into a recent decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the McDonald’s case, creating a duty of oversight for corporate officers.

Some of the highlights include:

·      Why can bad facts make bad laws?

·      The sordid facts of David Fairhurst during his tenure at McDonald’s.

·      The legal rationale.

·      What is Caremark, and how did it influence this decision?

·      What does it mean for CCOs?

·      How does this decision intertwine with the Monaco Doctrine, CCO certification, and the new Corporate Enforcement Policy?

 Resources

Tom with a multipart series on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

Matt Kelly with two posts in Radical Compliance

Categories
Blog

The World Has Changed: McDonald’s and the Oversight Duty of Officers-Part 2

This week, we are exploring a shift in the duties of care owed by corporate officers to the corporation. It is coming through the Chancery Court of Delaware in the case of McDonald’s Corporation and its former Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s Corporation, David Fairhurst and his part in the creation of an absolute toxic atmosphere of sexual harassment at the very highest levels of the organization. It is styled In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, and the court formally recognizes the oversight duties of officers of Delaware corporations. Today we consider the legal reasoning in the opinion.

Yesterday we began a discussion on the legal reasoning. Most compliance practitioners point to the 1996 Caremark decision as the one which set a Board’s duty around compliance. However, there has long been a duty of oversight in Delaware law, for Boards of Directors since at least the 1960s but for officers as well. In 1963, the Delaware Supreme Court established a Board duty when red flags are brought to its attention in the case of Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., which held that directors have an obligation to respond if information reached them, but created no affirmative duty to set up an information system to learn about issues within the company. A limited duty of oversight arose only if the directors had already learned enough to suspect that there were issues that needed overseeing. This was termed a “Red-Flags Claim” or a “Red-Flags Theory” of liability. This is also known as “Prong-One” Board liability.

Caremark created that affirmative duty for Board’s to engage in oversight. The Caremark court formulated a “more functional terminology, that species of claim can be called an “Information-Systems Claim” or an “Information- Systems Theory” of Board liability, also known as “Prong-Two” Board liability. In this type of case, a plaintiff typically pleads a prong-two Caremark claim by alleging that the board’s information systems generated red flags indicating wrongdoing and that the directors failed to respond. In McDonald’s Corp we now see both Prong-One and Prong-Two liability expanded to officers.

The Court of Chancery listed three key sources for expanding this duty from Boards to officers.

  1. Management runs a company. While Board’s oversee management, “most corporations are managed ‘under the direction of’ the board.” Moreover, “In the typical corporation, it is the officers who are charged with, and responsible for, running the business of the corporation.” Finally, “Because of this reality, “[m]onitoring and strategy are not exclusively the dominion of the board. Actually, nondirector officers may have a greater capacity to make oversight and strategic decisions on a day-to-day basis.”
  2. Boards depend on information from management. Here the court noted that “For relevant and timely information to reach the board, the officers who serve as the day-to-day managers of the entity must make a good faith effort to ensure that information systems are in place so that the officers receive relevant and timely information that they can provide to the directors.” From this, “it follows that officers must have a duty to make a good faith effort to establish an information system as a predicate to fulfilling their obligation to provide information to the board.”
  3. Compliance systems required under the USSG. The US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) mandate that “[h]igh- level personnel of the organization shall ensure that the organization has an effective compliance and ethics program, as described in this guideline.” This requirement includes that “Specific individual(s) within high-level personnel shall be assigned overall responsibility for the compliance and ethics program.” The USSG goes on to define an organization’s “high-level personnel” as “individuals who have substantial control over the organization or who have a substantial role in the making of policy within the organization,” which includes “a director; an executive officer; an individual in charge of a major business or functional unit of the organization, such as sales, administration, or finance; and an individual with a substantial ownership interest.” This has the added benefit of putting compliance professionals directly in the path of liability created in this decision.

Interestingly since the Delaware courts had not explicitly expanded the duty of oversight to offices, the court looked at some bankruptcy court decisions for guidance. Here the Delaware court found, there were both Prong-One Red Flag claims and Prong-Two Information Systems claims available against officers under certain circumstances. The Delaware court concluded this section with the following “All of the foregoing authorities start from the premise that officers owe the same duties as directors. Because directors owe a duty of oversight, these authorities reason that officers owe a duty of oversight. That logic is sound.”

In a section I found very interesting, the Delaware court noted that officers have fiduciary duties to the corporation akin to those duties agents owe their principals. Here the court pointed to a prior Delaware decision, which “recognized a standard of conduct at the officer level that included a duty to act carefully, loyally, and in good faith to gather and provide information, with the standard of liability for the care dimension of the duty measured by gross negligence. By recognizing the duty to provide information, Hampshire lays the foundation for an officer-level duty consistent with an Information-Systems Theory.” The Court also found there is officer accountability to the Board which supports this extension of the duty of oversight to officer.

With this legal underpinning in place, please join me tomorrow to explore how this decision will impact Chief Compliance Officers.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

Day 5 – The Board and Operationalizing Compliance

The most significant development for Boards and compliance continues to come from the Delaware courts, which have been expanding the civil law obligations of Boards through a series of court decisions involving the expansion of the Caremark Doctrine for the past several years. These developments began with the Marchand (Blue Bell Ice Cream) decision which required Boards to manage the risks their organizations face. Next was Clovis Oncology which required ongoing monitoring by the Board. Finally, the Boeing case stands for the continuing proposition that a Board cannot simply have the trappings of oversight, it must do the serious work required and have evidence of that work (Document, Document, and Document).


The decision in Boeing is yet a further expansion of the Caremark Doctrine, once again beginning with Marchand. Boeing also states that a company must assess its risks and then manage them right up through the Board level. Finally, a Board must be aggressive in their approach and not passively take in what management has presented to them.
The DOJ has also made clear its thoughts on the role of the Board of Directors. The role of the Board is different than that of senior management. The 2020 Update and DOJ Antitrust Division’s 2019 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations were even more explicit in announcing their expectation for robust Board oversight of a corporate compliance function.

Name any of the most recent corporate scandals; Wells Fargo, Theranos, Volkswagen, Boeing, FTX, etc., and there was no compliance expertise on the Board. It is now enshrined as a best practice for companies to have a seasoned compliance professional on the Board. I would also add that the DOJ may soon expect a Compliance Committee separate from the Audit Committee.
The DOJ continually speaks about the need for companies to operationalize their compliance programs. Businesses must work to integrate compliance into the DNA of their organization. Having a Board member with specific compliance expertise or heading a Compliance Committee can provide a level of oversight and commitment to achieving this goal. The DOJ enshrined this requirement in the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. This means that when your company is evaluated by the DOJ, under the factors set out in the 2020 Update and FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, to retrospectively determine if your company had a best practices compliance program in place at the time of any violation, you need to have not only the structure of the Board-level Compliance Committee but also the specific subject matter expertise on the Board and on that committee.

This means that every Board of Directors needs a true compliance expert. Almost every Board has a former Chief Financial Officer, former head of Internal Audit, or persons with a similar background. Often, these are also the Audit Committee members of the Board. Such a background brings a level of sophistication, training, and SME that can help all companies with their financial reporting and other finance-based issues. So why is there no such SME at the Board level from the compliance profession?

Three key takeaways:

1. The 2020 Update required active Board of Director engagement and oversight around compliance.
2. Board communication on compliance is two-way, both inbound and outbound.
3. The Delaware courts have been expanding Board’s roles through the expansion of the Caremark Doctrine.

Categories
Role of the Board of Compliance

Caremark

Tom Fox and Jonathan T. Marks kick off the series with a deep dive into the 1996 Caremark decision, the 2006 Stone v. Ritter resolution, and the compliance lessons companies and board members can learn from the facts and patterns of these fundamental cases.

▶️ Caremark with Tom Fox and Jonathan T. Marks

Key points discussed in the episode:

  1. Tom Fox gives a brief background on the Caremark case.
  2. Jonathan T. Marks describes how ethical behavior is the backbone of an organization and how this case defined the importance of having proper oversight monitoring.
  3. Tom Fox lays out Caremark’s penalties. He describes the Stone v. Ritter facts, how the bank was sued for failure to perform due diligence on fraudulent investors and violating the Bank Secrecy Act. These schemes follow a pattern that has been seen repeatedly. It has also defined the duties of board members: avoiding negligence and arising from failures.
  4. Jonathan T. Marks explains how fundamentals made their way into compliance laws in other countries, how guidelines are warning shots for companies to clean up, and urging companies to step up.
  5. The Caremark doctrine later refined two conditions for director liability and emphasized why boards must actively engage in oversight.
  6. Board members must get down to the nitty-gritty of what is truly happening in their organizations, ask tough questions, do a deeper self-assessment, and stop refusing to avoid problems and the ugly truth.

—————————————————————————-

Do you have a podcast (or do you want to)? Join the only network dedicated to compliance, risk management, and business ethics, the Compliance Podcast Network. For more information, contact Tom Fox at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

Categories
The Woody Report

The Solar Winds Decision

Welcome to The Woody Report, where Washington & Lee School of Law Associate Professor Karen Woody and host Tom Fox discuss issues on white-collar crime, compliance issues, international corruption, securities, and accounting fraud, and internal corporate investigations. From current events to topical issues to academic research and thought leadership, Karen Woody helps lead the discussion of these issues on the new and exciting podcast. In this episode, Tom and Karen explore the recently announced decision in the Solar Winds shareholder claim based upon the Caremark Doctrine. Some of the issues we explore include:

  1. Background facts and court rationale.
  2. What is ‘positive law’?
  3. Can any cyberbreach claim be the basis of a Caremark Claim?
  4. Why is victim v. perpetrator status critical in a Caremark Claim?
  5. What is the bad faith standard in Caremark Claims?
  6. What does this decision portend for Caremark Claims going forward?

Resources

Karen Woody on LinkedIn

Karen Woody at Washington & Lee, School of Law

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Cyber Security Failures Alleged in Mudge Whistleblower Compliant

Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. In this episode, we mine the whistleblower allegations by Peiter Zatko, AKA “Mudge,” made against Twitter for lessons for the cyber-security professional and wide compliance discipline. Highlights and questions posed include:

·      The allegations made by Mudge.

·      Why does an organization need a CISO (or CCO or CECO)?

·      How did Twitter get hacked, its employees duped, and its controls bypassed?

·      What is pedestrian yet telling in this saga?

·      Why is data mapping mandatory if not critical?

·      Where were the external auditors?

·      Is there a Caremark claim here?

Resources

Matt in Radical Compliance

Categories
Blog

Impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines at 30

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) by the US Sentencing Commission (USSC) turn 30 this year. For compliance officers, this was perhaps the most significant government release. It did not create the compliance profession, but it certainly put compliance professionals in the forefront of the design, creation and implementation of corporate compliance programs. The FSGO also laid out for the first time, the government’s expectations of what a well-designed compliance program should look like in practice. This led to a dramatic increase in compliance professionals. Earnie Broughton, writing in the ECI blog, said, “In many ways the promulgation of the guidelines was a defining moment in our collective journey in understanding and realizing the benefits of good corporate character.”

In 2021, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 291,000 compliance officers in the US. But more than driving the compliance profession and a concomitant increase in compliance professionals the FSGO has in many ways shaped the structure of the 21st century corporation and dramatically improved corporate governance. In these ways, it laid the environmental, social and governance (ESG) foundations. Last month the US Sentencing Commission (USSC) released a summary of the FSGO and how it helped drives these changes, “The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: Thirty Years of Innovation” (the History).

Regarding the FSGO themselves, they take a “carrot and stick” approach to the sentencing scheme that bases the fine range on the culpability of the organization. The guidelines instruct courts to determine culpability by considering six factors. The four aggravating factors, “that increase the ultimate punishment of an organization are: (i) the involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity; (ii) the prior history of the organization; (iii) the violation of an order; and (iv) the obstruction of justice.” The two mitigating factors are: “(i) the existence of an effective compliance and ethics program; and (ii) self-reporting, cooperation, or acceptance of responsibility.” Rather amazingly, the History reported that only 1.5% overall of all organizations sentenced “received the five-point culpability score reduction for disclosing the offense to appropriate authorities prior to a government investigation in addition to their  full cooperation and acceptance of responsibility.” Obviously, there is still room for improvement.

Rather unsurprisingly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) drew heavily on the FSGO for two key documents which laid out the foundations of an effective compliance program. The first was the 2012 FCPA Resource Guide (developed and released jointly with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) and its update, the 2021 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition. The second was the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, initially released in 2019, and the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. The History noted that the Evaluation and its update, “was first developed in 2017 under the leadership of the DOJ’s first “corporate compliance expert”” and “provides greater clarity on some key issues prosecutors consider when assessing the adequacy of corporate compliance programs during charging and settlement decisions, by laying out “fundamental questions” that prosecutors should ask about compliance programs:

  • Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed. There were three key questions for consideration:
  • Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith?
  • In other words, is the program being implemented effectively?
  • Does the corporation’s compliance program work in practice?

The Evaluation and its Update then proceed to describe “in detail the topics that prosecutors should consider when answering those questions.”Demonstrating its influence far beyond the DOJ, SEC and other government agencies, the Delaware court decision in Caremark demonstrates a key effect in the transformation of compliance programs, policies and procedures in the corporate world. The Caremark decision was a departure from prior Delaware case law which said that a board did not have to look for wrongdoing but only had to investigate if informed about it. That was from an old 1963 decision and the Court relied on the 1992 US Sentencing Guidelines to note how such views were no longer accepted. Board obligations had changed by 1996 with the following, “obligation to be reasonably informed concerning the corporation, without assuring themselves that information and reporting systems exist in the organization that are reasonably designed to provide to senior management and to the board itself timely, accurate information sufficient to allow management and the board, each within its scope, to reach informed judgments concerning both the corporation’s compliance with law and its business performance.”

Caremark considered the proposed settlement of a derivative suit seeking to impose personal liability on members of the board of directors. The History noted, “the court considered whether director liability could stem from unconsidered action by the board. After observing that “[t]he Guidelines offer powerful incentives for corporations today to have in place compliance programs to detect violations of law, promptly to report violations to appropriate public officials when discovered, and to take prompt, voluntary remedial efforts,” the court concluded that “[a]ny rational person attempting in good faith to meet an organizational governance responsibility would be bound to take into account [the organizational guidelines].”

This meant that a director has a good faith duty to see that the organization establishes adequate information and reporting systems. i.e., a compliance program. No doubt due to the significance of the Delaware courts, “following the Caremark decision, federal and state courts recognized the importance of compliance programs in the context of shareholder derivative suits.” Caremark  and its progeny are now the law of the land regarding corporate governance and compliance across most states in the US.

All of these changes and much more point to the far- and wide-ranging impact of the FSGO.  “What began as an “experiment” to encourage legal compliance and foster more ethical business practices is now widely accepted as a success.” Moreover, “evidence suggests that compliance and ethics programs implemented using the guideline criteria produce positive effects on an organization’s behavior” and that the FSGO has had a significant impact on public and private sector actors.” Finally, the History concludes that the influence of FSGO “is now spreading around the globe, suggesting that the hallmarks of an effective compliance and ethics program have universal appeal.”

Categories
Blog

A Caremark Retrospective: Part III – Lessons for Today

Over this short blog post series I have been exploring the original Caremark and Stone v. Ritter decisions from the Delaware Supreme Court. The former decision was released in 1996 and the latter, some ten years later in 2006. The original Caremark decision laid the foundation for the modern obligations of Boards of Directors in oversight of compliance in general and a company’s risk management profile in particular. Stone v. Ritter confirmed the ongoing vitality of the original Caremark decision. In Part 1, we reviewed the underlying facts of the Caremark decision and in Part II, we considered the court holdings and rationales in Caremark and Stone v. Ritter. Today, I want to review what those decisions mean for today’s Board of Directors, Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and compliance professional.

Bribery, Fraud and Corruption

One of the things that struck me about both decisions was how timely the underlying facts were. In Caremark, a 1996 decision with the corruption going back into the 1980s, the case involved a company which provided patient care and managed care services and a substantial part of the revenues generated by the company was derived through third party payments, insurers, and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs. Medicare and Medicaid payments were governed under the Anti-Referral Payments Law (“ARPL”) which prohibited health care providers (HCPs) from paying any form of remuneration (i.e., kickbacks) to physicians to induce them to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to Caremark products or services.

To get around this prescription, Caremark entered various contracts for services (e.g., consultation agreements and research grants) with physicians at least some of whom prescribed or recommended services or products that Caremark provided to Medicare recipients and other patients. Moreover, Caremark had a decentralized governance and operational structure which allowed wide latitude to the business units to enter into such agreements without corporate or any centralized compliance or legal oversight. The results were about what you would expect.

In Stone v. Ritter, the AmSouth bank was induced to open a custodial account for two investment advisers who induced some 40 investors into a fraudulent investment, involving the construction of medical clinics overseas, by misrepresenting the nature and the risk of that investment. The bank provided custodial accounts for the investors and to distribute monthly interest payments to each account upon receipt of a check from the investment advisors. The scheme went on for about two years before the sapped investors stopped getting paid and began to contact the bank.

Federal bank examiners examined AmSouth’s compliance with its reporting and other obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). AmSouth “entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) in which AmSouth agreed: first, to the filing by USAO of a one-count Information in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, charging AmSouth with failing to file SARs; and second, to pay a $40 million fine. In conjunction with the DPA, the USAO issued a “Statement of Facts,” which noted that although in 2000 “at least one” AmSouth employee suspected that Hamric was involved in a possibly illegal scheme, AmSouth failed to file SARs in a timely manner.” From my reading of these facts, it appears that there was ample evidence an illegal scheme was ongoing, and a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) should have been filed. As with the underlying facts of Caremark, the underlying facts of Stone v. Ritter are still the basis for enforcement actions today.

Caremark – The Evolution of Board Duties

To create the modern Caremark Doctrine the Delaware Supreme Court had to overcome prior existing Delaware law regarding the board’s obligations. That decision from 1963, is known as  Allis-Chalmers, addressed the question of potential liability of board members for losses experienced by the corporation as a result of the corporation having violated US antitrust laws. There was no claim in that case that the directors knew about the behavior of subordinate employees of the corporation that had resulted in the liability.

Rather,  the claim asserted was that the directors ought to have known of it and if they had known they would have been under a duty to bring the corporation into compliance with the law and save the corporation from the loss. In Allis-Chalmers the Court found “absent cause for suspicion there is no duty upon the directors to install and operate a corporate system of espionage to ferret out wrongdoing which they have no reason to suspect exists.” As there were no grounds for suspicion in by the board, the directors were blamelessly unaware of the conduct leading to the corporate liability.

The Court found that the obligations for a board had evolved significantly from 1963, most notably in three areas. First, in the area of corporate takeovers, the court viewed “the seriousness with which the corporation law views the role of the corporate board.” The second area was the recognition as an “essential predicate for satisfaction of the board’s supervisory and monitoring role under Section 141 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.” The third and final change was the 1992 US Sentencing Guides and the “potential impact of the federal organizational sentencing guidelines on any business organization. Any rational person attempting in good faith to meet an organizational governance responsibility would be bound to take into account this development and the enhanced penalties and the opportunities for reduced sanctions that it offers.”

To effectuate this change, the court stated “I am of the view that a director’s obligation includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure that a corporate information and reporting system, which the board concludes is adequate, exists, and that failure to do so under some circumstances may, in theory at least, render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards.” Moreover, “it is important that the board exercise a good faith judgment that the corporation’s information and reporting system is in concept and design adequate to assure the board that appropriate information will come to its attention in a timely manner as a matter of ordinary operations, so that it may satisfy its responsibility.”

Conclusion

It is this final language which forms the basis of the modern Caremark Doctrine. There has been expansion of the Doctrine from this basic language over the past 25 years. Hopefully every board is aware of their obligations and are actually meeting them. However, every CCO and compliance professional needs to make the board aware of its Caremark obligations and then educate them on how to fulfill those obligations.