Tag: clawbacks

Categories
Compliance Tip of the Day

Compliance Tip of the Day: Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks

Welcome to “Compliance Tip of the Day,” the podcast where we bring you daily insights and practical advice on navigating the ever-evolving landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements.

Whether you’re a seasoned compliance professional or just starting your journey, our aim is to provide you with bite-sized, actionable tips to help you stay on top of your compliance game.

Join us as we explore the latest industry trends, share best practices, and demystify complex compliance issues to keep your organization on the right side of the law.

Tune in daily for your dose of compliance wisdom, and let’s make compliance a little less daunting, one tip at a time.

In this episode, we consider what the DOJ has done in terms of emphasizing financial incentives and penalties for compliance.

 

For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here.

Categories
Compliance Week Conference Podcast

Compliance Week 2024 Speaker Preview Podcasts – Jonathan Rusch on Clawbacks and Holdbacks

In the Compliance Week 2024 Speaker Preview Podcasts episode, Jonathan Rusch discusses his panel at Compliance Week 2024, “Clawbacks, Incentives, and Remediation.” Some of the issues he will discuss in this podcast and his presentation are:

  • DOJ emphasizes clawbacks in remediation
  • The additional role of holdbacks
  • Learn about cutting-edge topics at Compliance Week 2024

I hope you can join me at Compliance Week 2024. This year’s event will be held April 2-4 at The Westin Washington, DC, Downtown. The line-up for this year’s event is first-rate, with some of the top ethics and compliance practitioners around.

Gain insights and make connections at the industry’s premier cross-industry national compliance event, offering knowledge-packed, accredited sessions and take-home advice from the most influential leaders in the compliance community. Back for its 19th year, join 500+ compliance, ethics, legal, and audit professionals who gather to benchmark best practices and gain the latest tactics and strategies to enhance their compliance programs. Compliance, ethics, legal, and audit professionals will gather safely face-to-face to benchmark best practices and gain the latest tactics and strategies to enhance their compliance programs, among many others, to:

  • Network with your peers, including C-suite executives, legal professionals, HR leaders, and ethics and compliance visionaries.
  • Hear from 80+ respected cross-industry practitioners, including CEOs, CCOs, regulators, federal officials, and practitioners, to help inform and shape the strategic direction of your enterprise risk management program.
  • Hear directly from panels on leadership, fraud detection, confronting regulatory change, abiding by cross-border rules and regulations, and the always-favorite fireside chats.
  • Bring actionable takeaways from various session types, including cyber, AI, Compliance, Board obligations, data-driven compliance, and many others, to your program for you to listen, learn, and share.
  • Compliance Week aims to arm you with information, strategy, and tactics to transform your organization and career by connecting ethics to business performance through process augmentation and data visualization.

I hope you can join me at the event. For information on the event, click here. As an extra benefit to listeners of this podcast, Compliance Week is offering a $200 discount on the registration price. Enter the discount code TFOX2024 for $200 off.

The Compliance Podcast Network produces the Compliance Week 2024 Preview Podcast series. Compliance Week sponsors this series.

Categories
Blog

Ten Top Lessons from Recent FCPA Settlements – Lesson No. 6, Clawbacks and Holdbacks

Over the past 15 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have made clear, through three Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions and speeches, their priorities in investigations, remediations, and best practices compliance programs. Every compliance professional should study each of these enforcement actions closely for the lessons learned and direct communications from the DOJ. They should guide not simply your actions should you find yourself in an investigation but also how you should think about priorities.

The three FCPA enforcement actions are ABB from December 2022, Albemarle from November 2023, and SAP from January 2024. Taken together, they point out a clear path for the company that finds itself in an investigation: using extensive remediation to avoid a monitor. They also provide insight for the compliance professional into what the DOJ expects in an ongoing best practices compliance program.

Over a series of blog posts, I will lay out what I believe are the Top Ten lessons from these enforcement actions for compliance professionals who find themselves in an enforcement action. Today we continue  with Number 6, Clawbacks and Holdbacks. These strategies are relatively new to the DOJ’s arsenal, and they want companies to employ them in enforcement actions. While the DOJ and SEC have long made clear that they view monetary structure for incentive compensation, as far back as the FCPA Resource Guide, 1st edition (2012), they did not focus as intensely on the disincentive side of the equation. Prior to the Monaco Memo, clawbacks had not been generally seen as a necessary part of a compliance program.

This began to change in the Monaco Memo. It is now unequivocally required by the DOJ and listed as a crucial area of DOJ inquiry in the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. Moreover, having such a penalty in place is also seen as part of an excellent corporate culture, which not only penalizes those who engage in unethical behavior in violation of a company’s policies and procedures but will also “promote compliant behavior and emphasize the corporation’s commitment to its compliance programs and its culture.”

The DOJ was told to look into whether companies have “clawback” clauses in their pay agreements and whether “as soon as the company found out about the misconduct, the company has, as much as possible, taken affirmative steps to carry out such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions led to or contributed to the criminal conduct at issue.”

The Monaco Memo directed “to develop further guidance by the end of the year on how to reward corporations that develop and apply compensation clawback policies, including how to shift the burden of corporate financial penalties away from shareholders—who in many cases do not have a role in misconduct—onto those more directly responsible.” This clause is an effort by the DOJ to keep companies from shielding recalcitrant executives from the consequences of their own illegal and unethical conduct.

However, the Monaco Memo clarified that it is not simply having a written policy and procedure. If warranted, there must be corporate action under the clawback policy and procedure. In the Albemarle and SAP enforcement actions, the DOJ evaluated the companies’ actions, “Following the corporation’s discovery of misconduct, a corporation has, to the extent possible, taken affirmative steps to execute on such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions resulted in or contributed to the criminal conduct at issue.”

Albemarle

Albemarle went in a different direction—not clawbacks, but holdbacks. While the DOJ has made much noise about clawbacks from recalcitrant executives, Albemarle engaged in holdbacks, where they did not pay bonuses to certain employees involved in the conduct or those who had oversight. The NPA stated, “The company withheld bonuses totaling $763,453 during the course of its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing.” The illegal conduct involved those who “(a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct; and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.” The significance of this effort was vital as it qualified Albemarle for an additional fine reduction of a dollar-for-dollar credit of the amount of the withheld bonuses under the Criminal Division’s March 2023 Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program. 

SAP

SAP had extensive holdbacks as well. The DPA noted SAP withheld bonuses totaling $109,141 during the course of its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation, or who both (a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct, and further engaged in substantial litigation to defend its withholding from those employees, which qualified SAP for an additional fine reduction in the amount of the withheld bonuses under the DOJ’s Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program.

The DOJ has given significant credit to both Albemarle and SAP for their holdbacks, and we would expect them to continue to do so. If your organization has not instituted a Clawback/Holdback Policy, now is the time to do so rather than wait until you are in the middle of an investigation or enforcement action. Also, remember that the DOJ gives a dollar-for-dollar credit on any settlement where the company engaged in either clawbacks or holdbacks.

Categories
Blog

The SAP FCPA Enforcement Action-Part 3: The Comeback

This week we are taking a deep dive into the SAP Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action. In it, SAP agreed to pay the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approximately $222 million in penalties and disgorgement. SAP also entered into a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the DOJ. Given the multi-year (2014-2022) length of the various bribery and corruption schemes and worldwide geographic scope, the amounts paid in bribes and benefits garnered by SAP from their corruption; one might charitably wonder how SAP was able to reap such a positive outcome of only a fine and penalty totaling $222 million. We will explore that question today.

Extensive Cooperation

The starting point for this analysis is the DOJ DPA. The first key point to note is there was no self-disclosure by SAP. As the DPA noted, SAP only began to cooperate after investigative reports were made public in 2017 in South Africa about SAP’s bribery and corruption program. However from this point forward SAP moved to extensively cooperate. The DAP noted SAP “immediately beginning to cooperate after South African investigative reports made public allegations of the South Africa-related misconduct in 2017 and providing regular, prompt, and detailed updates to the Fraud Section and the Office regarding factual information obtained through its own internal investigation, which allowed the government to preserve and obtain evidence as part of its independent investigation…”

This cooperation included producing relevant documents and other information to the Fraud Section “from multiple foreign countries expeditiously, while navigating foreign data privacy and related laws;” SAP “voluntarily making Company officers and employees available for interviews;”  and took “significant affirmative steps to facilitate interviews while addressing witness security concerns”; interestingly SAP was required to resolve potential deconfliction issues between the its own internal investigation and the investigation being conducted by the DOJ. The company promptly collected, analyzed, and organized “voluminous information, including complex financial information.” It translated “voluminous foreign language documents to facilitate and expedite review by the Fraud Section and the Office.” Most interestingly, the DPA repored that SAP imaged “the phones of relevant custodians at the beginning of the Company’s internal investigation, thus preserving relevant and highly probative business communications sent on mobile messaging applications.”

The Remediation

The DPA reported extensive remediation by SAP as well and the information provided in the DPA is instructive for every compliance professional. The DPA noted that SAP engaged in the following remedial steps.

  1. Conducted a root cause analysis of the underlying conduct then remediating those root causes through enhancement of its compliance program;
  2. Conducted a gap analysis of internal controls, remediating those found lacking;
  3. Undertook a “comprehensive risk assessment focusing on high-risk areas and controls around payment processes and enhancing its regular compliance risk assessment process”;
  4. SAP documented its use of a “comprehensive operational and compliance data” into its risk assessments;
  5. SAP eliminating “its third-party sales commission model globally, and prohibiting all sales commissions for public sector contracts in high-risk markets”;
  6. “Significantly increasing the budget, resources, and expertise devoted to compliance;”
  7. Restructuring its Offices of Ethics and Compliance to ensure adequate stature, independence, autonomy, and access to executive leadership;
  8. Enhanced its code of conduct and policies and procedures regarding gifts, hospitality, and the use of third parties;
  9. Enhancing its reporting, investigations and consequence management processes;
  10. Adjusting compensation incentives to align with compliance objectives and reduce corruption risk;
  11. Enhanced and expanding compliance monitoring and audit programs, planning, and resources, including developing a well-resourced team devoted to audits of third-party partners and suppliers;
  12. Expanded its data analytics capabilities to cover over 150 countries, including all high-risk countries globally; and
  13. Disciplined “any and all” employees involved in the misconduct.

Obviously, SAP engaged in a wide range of remedial actions. It all started with a root cause analysis. Root Cause analysis was enshrined in the FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition as one of the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. It stated, “The truest measure of an effective compliance program is how it responds to misconduct. Accordingly, for a compliance program to be truly effective, it should have a well-functioning and appropriately funded mechanism for the timely and thorough investigations of any allegations or suspicions of misconduct by the company, its employees, or agents. An effective investigation’s structure will also have an established means of documenting the company’s response, including any disciplinary or remediation measures taken.”

In addition to having a mechanism for responding to the specific incident of misconduct, the company’s compliance program should also integrate lessons learned from any misconduct into the company’s policies, training, and controls on a go-forward basis. To do so, a company will need to analyze the root causes of the misconduct to timely and appropriately remediate those causes to prevent future compliance breaches. This SAP did during its remediation phase.

Equally of interest are the references to data analytics and data driven compliance. SAP not only did so around its third-party program but also expanded its data analytics capabilities to cover over 150 countries, including all high-risk countries globally. The SEC Order also noted that SAP had implemented data analytics to identify and review high- risk transactions and third-party controls. The SAP DPA follows the Albemarle FCPA settlement by noting that data analytics is now used by SAP to measure the compliance program’s effectiveness. This language follows a long line of DOJ pronouncements, starting with the 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, about the corporate compliance functions access to all company data; this is the second time it has been called out in a settlement agreement in this manner. Additionally, it appears that by using data analytics, SAP was able to satisfy the DOJ requirement for implementing controls and then effectively testing them throughout the pendency of the DOJ investigation; thereby avoiding a monitor.

Next was the holdback/clawback actions engaged in by SAP. The DPA noted, SAP withheld bonuses totaling $109,141 during the course of its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation, or who both (a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct, and further engaged in substantial litigation to defend its withholding from those employees, which qualified SAP for an additional fine reduction in the amount of the withheld bonuses under the DOJ’s Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program.

Finally, the DOJ related that SAP had enhanced and has committed to continuing to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfied the minimum elements set forth in Attachment C to DPA. Based upon all these factors, including SAP’s remediation and the state of its compliance program, and the Company’s agreement to report to the Fraud Section and the Office as set forth in Attachment D to this Agreement, the DOJ “determined that an independent compliance monitor was unnecessary.”

All-in-all a great result by and for SAP for which the company and its compliance team should take great credit in going forward.

Resources

SEC Order

DOJ DPA

Join us tomorrow where we consider fine and penalties.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 5 – Kenneth Polite on Clawbacks

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. began his speech on clawback policy developed by the DOJ to promote “innovative approaches to compensation,” which would “shift the burden of corporate malfeasance away from uninvolved shareholders onto those more directly responsible.” She believes “Companies should ensure that executives and employees are personally invested in promoting compliance,” as “nothing grabs attention or demands personal investment like having skin in the game, through direct and tangible financial incentives.” This led the Criminal Division to “develop guidance, guidance on how to reward corporations with compliance-promoting compensation programs.”

The clawback initiative has two parts. “First, every corporate resolution involving the Criminal Division will now include a requirement that the resolving company develop compliance-promoting criteria within its compensation and bonus system. Second is the creation of a 3-year pilot program under which the “Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”

Three key takeaways:

1. The clawback policy was developed to promote “innovative approaches to compensation.

2. Clawbacks will include those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct and knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.

3. How far will the DOJ push companies to move for clawbacks, and how far down the chain will it go?

Categories
Blog

Key Compliance Speeches from 2023-Kenneth Polite on Incentives and Consequence Management

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. began his speech with an interesting aside. It is about the clear tie between poverty and corruption. This is why it is important to prosecute corrupt government officials because their actions keep the people of in such dire economic straits. He stated, “Just as crime recognizes no borders, our efforts to combat it must be equally boundless. We need our partners – both domestic and international – to solve community problems. That is where the Criminal Division thrives.” In the Diaz case there was international cooperation at various levels. Think about that for a moment, the US and Venezuelan governments cooperating on anything, yet they apparently did cooperate on this matter. Polite added that several recent FCPA corporate enforcement matters, “Glencore, ABB, Danske, and Stericycle, among many others, underscore the successes that we’ve shared with our colleagues abroad.”

To be truly effective community problem-solvers, prosecutors must broaden our sense of community by literally ‘spanning the globe’ to fight crime, including bribery and corruption. Polite stated, “Crime does not limit itself by country or region. Corruption’s corrosive effects are global, with the world’s poor often bearing the brunt. Bribery threatens our collective security by undermining the rule of law and providing a breeding ground for other crime and authoritarian rule.”

Clawbacks

The clawback policy was developed to promote “innovative approaches to compensation” which would “shift the burden of corporate malfeasance away from uninvolved shareholders onto those more directly responsible.” She believes “Companies should ensure that executives and employees are personally invested in promoting compliance” as “nothing grabs attention or demands personal investment like having skin in the game, through direct and tangible financial incentives.” This led the Criminal Division to “develop guidance, guidance on how to reward corporations with compliance-promoting compensation programs.”

The clawback Initiative has two parts. “First, every corporate resolution involving the Criminal Division will now include a requirement that the resolving company develop compliance-promoting criteria within its compensation and bonus system. Second is the creation of a 3-year pilot program under which the “Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”

Finally, the DOJ has added some real benefits for companies which follow these prescripts. First is that any company which resolves a FCPA violation will “pay the applicable fine, minus a reserved credit equaling the amount of compensation the company is attempting to claw back from culpable executives and employees.” Additionally, “If the company succeeds and recoups compensation from a responsible employee, the company gets to keep that clawback money — and also doesn’t have to pay the amount it recovered.” Finally, if the company’s efforts at clawbacks are not successful or completed during the pendency of the investigation up to the settlement “the pilot program will also ensure that those who pursue clawbacks in good faith but are unsuccessful are still eligible to receive a fine reduction.” All of these efforts are designed to “shift the burden of corporate wrongdoing away from shareholders, who frequently play no role in the misconduct, onto those directly responsible.” This new emphasis is clearly designed to encourage companies who do not already factor compliance into compensation to retool their programs and get ahead of the curve.

Polite provided more detail on the new clawback initiative. He said, “As to clawbacks: for companies that fully cooperate with our investigation and timely and appropriately remediate the misconduct, they may receive an additional fine reduction if the company has implemented a program to recoup compensation and uses that program. We expect companies that use these programs to address not only employees who engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation, but also those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct, and knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.” (emphasis mine)

Expanding on the benefits for an organization, he stated, “If the company meets these factors and – in good faith – has initiated the process to recover such compensation at the time of resolution, our prosecutors will accord an additional fine reduction equal to the amount of any compensation that is recouped within the resolution term.” Finally, “if a company’s good faith effort is unsuccessful by the time the resolution term ends, our prosecutors will have discretion to accord a fine reduction of up to 25% of the amount of compensation that has been sought.”

Polite did leave room for companies to weigh a variety of factors in bringing a clawback claim. He noted, “We are not trying to incentivize waste. To the contrary, companies should make an assessment about the potential cost to shareholders and prospect of success of clawback litigation, given any applicable laws, and weigh it against the value of recoupment – and proceed in accordance with their stated corporate policies on executive compensation. This Pilot Program will be in effect for three years, allowing us to gather data and assess its effectiveness and also aid other components and offices in considering this important issue.”

Any litigation is always fraught with unknowns, both known and unknown. Given the imbroglio involving the DOJ and Cognizant Technologies Solutions over the DOJ prosecution of former executives, the road to any successful clawback will be fraught with peril. Additionally, it is not clear how far companies or the DOJ will push for clawbacks from “those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in the misconduct.” If scope creep comes in it could be a wide group.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: December 14, 2023 – The Serious Misconduct Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

Stories we are following in today’s edition:

  • Former BP CEO docked $40M for ‘serious misconduct’. (WSJ)
  • Why culture outside the US matters. (FT)
  • Tesla has a 2MM car recall. (BBC)
  • Hackers target outdated servers. (Reuters)
Categories
Blog

Executive Compliance Comp and Compliance: From Incentives to Clawbacks

There are two problems that every company must deal with at the intersection of executive compensation and compliance. The first is the presence of perverse incentives within organizations, where executives are often encouraged to take excessive risks because they personally profit from them. This misalignment of incentives can lead to unethical behavior and non-compliance, ultimately harming the organization and its stakeholders. The second is both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) mandates for executive clawbacks.

Incentives

To address this issue, companies need to tie positive incentives directly to senior executives. By holding them accountable for compliance failures, we can align their compensation with compliance objectives. This approach ensures that executives have a personal stake in maintaining ethical practices within the organization. What makes this approach unique is that it is a business response to a legal problem, rather than a government mandate. A business response is always a better way to go, as it allows organizations to take ownership of their compliance programs and tailor them to their specific needs.

Various proposals are discussed in the podcast to ensure senior executives are held personally accountable for compliance failures. One solution, suggested by William Dudley, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is for senior management and material risk takers to forfeit their performance bond in the case of large fines. This not only disciplines individual behavior and decision-making but also incentivizes individuals to flag issues when problems arise.

Another approach, outlined in an article titled “Ties That Bind Codes of Conduct,” recommends automatic reduction of pay for officers, directors, and advisors for failures of corporate governance. Executives would agree to pay back a portion of their gross compensation for a set period before the beginning of any improprieties, regardless of their knowledge of misdeeds within the company.

While corporate leaders may not be enthusiastic about being held accountable, these proposals offer a business solution to a legal problem. Holding senior executives responsible for the conduct of others aligns with their obligations under Sarbanes-Oxley and ensures that they are not shielded from the consequences of non-compliance. Shareholders are also becoming less accepting of the argument that leaders should not be responsible for the actions of their employees.

Data from an article by Gretchen Morgenson titled “Ways to Put Your Boss’s Skin in the Game” further supports the need for accountability in executive compensation. The article explores how to make senior executives more responsible for corporate malfeasance, with implications that apply to compliance programs and compensation tied to compliance.  Creating accountability in executive compensation is a critical step towards promoting ethical business practices and compliance within organizations. By tying positive incentives to senior executives, we can ensure that they have a personal stake in maintaining compliance objectives. The proposals discussed in the podcast, such as forfeiting performance bonds and enforcing pay reductions for failures of corporate governance, offer practical solutions to address perverse incentives and drive ethical behavior.

Clawbacks

Clawbacks, often seen as a form of guarantee for businesses, play a vital role in addressing employee misconduct. These provisions, typically included in written contracts, serve as a deterrent and allow organizations to reclaim incentive or bonus funds from employees engaged in wrongful activities. It is important to note that clawbacks apply to compensation received as incentives or bonuses, rather than salary.

The SEC has provided guidance on constructing effective clawback provisions. In their final rule titled “Listing Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation,” (the Rule) the SEC directs National Securities Exchanges and Associations to establish listing standards for issuers to develop and implement policies for recovering incentive-based compensation in the event of required accounting restatements.

The DOJ has also weighed in on subject of clawbacks, most recently in the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), it stated “Are the terms of bonus and deferred compensation subject to cancellation or recoupment, to the extent available under applicable law, in the event that non-compliant or unethical behavior is exposed before or after the award was issued? Does the company have a policy for recouping compensation that has been paid, where there has been misconduct? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied, compensation recouped or deferred compensation cancelled) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?”

In summary, both the SEC and DOJ have now laid out the foundations for both incentives and consequence management.

SEC: The SEC Rule encompasses a wide range of scenarios. Companies are required to claw back incentive compensation erroneously received by current or former executives during the three-year period preceding the required restatement date. The definition of “received” is broad, considering incentive compensation earned even if not yet paid. The recoverable amount may differ from what executives would have received based on the required restatement. The SEC rule prohibits companies from obtaining indemnity insurance to protect executives from clawbacks. This step ensures that executives are held personally accountable for their actions and fosters a culture of compliance within organizations.

DOJ: In the ECCP has emphasized the significance of clawbacks in compliance programs. The ECCP directs companies to develop and apply compensation and clawback policies, shifting the burden of financial penalties away from innocent shareholders. The clear intent to prevent companies from shielding employees involved in illegal and unethical conduct. The DOJ will consider whether a company has incentivized compliance by designing compensation systems that defer or escrow certain compensation tied to conduct consistent with company values and policies. Enforcement of a contract provisions that permit the company to recoup previously awarded compensation if the recipient of such compensation is found to have engaged in or to be otherwise responsible for corporate wrongdoing is now a critical metric that prosecutors will consider. Finally, prosecutors may consider whether provisions for recoupment or reduction of compensation due to compliance violations or misconduct are maintained and enforced in accordance with company policy and applicable laws.

 Practical Steps

To create a robust compliance program that promotes ethical behavior and compliance, companies should consider the following practical advice:

  1. Documented Policies and Procedures: It is crucial for companies to document and reflect clawback policies and procedures in their compensation agreements. This documentation showcases a commitment to compliance and serves as a deterrent for potential misconduct.
  1. Clear Disciplinary Procedures: Companies should have appropriate and clear disciplinary procedures in place when enforcing a compliance program. Publicizing disciplinary actions internally and under local law can have a deterrent effect on employees, emphasizing the consequences of engaging in unlawful or unethical behavior.
  1. Personal Accountability: The DOJ and SEC prioritize holding individuals accountable for misconduct. Prosecutors evaluate whether a corporation’s compensation agreements incorporate clawback provisions that enable penalties to be levied against employees, executives, or directors involved in criminal conduct.

 Conclusion

Clawback provisions have become a crucial element in compliance programs, promoting ethical behavior and ensuring accountability within organizations. The SEC Rule, along with the DOJ’s emphasis on clawbacks from the Monaco Memo to the ECCP, highlights the significance of these provisions in the business world. By implementing well-documented clawback policies, companies can create a culture of compliance that rewards ethical behavior and protects innocent shareholders. Both initiatives prioritize ethical practices and compliance to build a better business environment for all stakeholders.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program: Day 9 – Clawbacks

In this podcast series, host Tom Fox explores the growing emphasis on clawback provisions in compliance programs and employee compensation.

Tom Fox delves into the crucial topic of clawback provisions in compliance programs and employee compensation. In light of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prioritizing individual accountability for misconduct, clawbacks have become essential in promoting ethical behavior and ensuring compliance. So, let’s dive in and explore the significance of clawbacks in today’s evolving compliance landscape.

Understanding Clawbacks and Incentive-Based Compensation:

Clawbacks, as discussed in the podcast, are provisions that enable organizations to reclaim incentive or bonus funds from employees engaged in misconduct. They serve as a powerful deterrent and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Previously, clawbacks were not seen as necessary, but the DOJ now mandates their inclusion in compensation agreements.

The DOJ’s Focus on Ethical Business Practices:

The DOJ, in its pursuit of punishing officers and employees who fail to conduct business ethically, has made clawbacks a part of best practices compliance programs. To evaluate a company’s compliance program, the DOJ and SEC consider whether the organization has appropriate disciplinary procedures in place. Publicizing disciplinary actions internally and under local law can have a deterrent effect, emphasizing the importance of transparent consequences for misconduct.

The Role of Clawbacks in Compliance Programs:

Having clawback provisions is now seen as a crucial aspect of a good corporate compliance culture. It promotes compliant behavior and demonstrates a company’s commitment to its compliance program. The DOJ investigates whether corporations have included clawback provisions in their compensation agreements and taken steps to execute on such agreements. This highlights the significance of documenting and reflecting these policies and procedures in a company’s own compensation practices.

The SEC’s Final Rule on Clawbacks:

The SEC’s final rule, titled “Listing Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation,” directs issuers to establish policies for recovering incentive-based compensation in the event of required accounting restatements. This rule applies to both Big R and Little R restatements and provides guidance in the anti-corruption world. Companies are now required to claw back incentive compensation erroneously received by current or former executives during the three-year period preceding the required restatement date.

Ensuring Compliance with Clawbacks:

It is essential for companies to construct well-documented clawback programs that align with the SEC’s guidance. The recoverable amount may differ from what executives would have received based on the required restatement, emphasizing the need for clarity and transparency in compensation agreements. Additionally, the SEC’s final rule prohibits companies from obtaining indemnity insurance to protect executives from clawbacks, further reinforcing the importance of accountability.

Conclusion:

As we’ve explored in this episode, clawbacks play a vital role in promoting ethical behavior and compliance within organizations. The DOJ’s emphasis on individual accountability and the SEC’s final rule on clawbacks demonstrate the evolving landscape of compliance. By implementing well-documented clawback provisions, companies can deter misconduct, hold individuals accountable, and showcase their commitment to ethical practices. Remember, incorporating clawbacks into your compliance program is not just a regulatory requirement but a practical step towards fostering a culture of integrity and responsibility.

 Three key takeaways:

1. The DOJ now mandates clawbacks in a compliance program.

2. The SEC has passed a clawback rule apart from the Monaco Memo.

3. Your clawback program should be well-documented.

For more information, check out The Compliance Handbook, 4th edition, available on LexisNexis.com.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: June 21, 2023 – The Paris 2024 Olympics

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance brings to you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

  • Paris 2024 Olympic offices raided in corruption probe. (ESPN)
  • It always starts at the top. (WSJ)
  • Jurisdictional issues around clawbacks. (JDSupra)
  • Palm oil industry corruption allegations. (Mongabay)