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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. Everything Compliance has been honored by W3 as the top talk show in podcasting. In this episode, we have the quartet of Tom Fox, Jonathan Marks, Matt Kelly and special guest Scott Garland from Affiliated Monitors, who discuss at the recent speeches by DAG Lisa Monaco and Kenneth Polite, announcing changes in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. We conclude with our fan fav Shout Outs and Rants section.
The members of the Everything Compliance are:
The host and producer, ranter (and sometime panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.
In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we review another new addition to the ECCP, that being ‘consequence management’. This certainly includes clawbacks but there is also other language which compliance professionals will need to incorporate into their compliance program beyond clawbacks.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been talking about clawbacks for some time now. However, the revised language of the ECCP puts more rigor around what the DOJ is now mandating. This section begins by noting that financial penalties as well as financial incentives can influence employee behavior and that prosecutors are now required to consider both aspects. It states:
“By way of example, prosecutors may consider whether a company has publicized disciplinary actions internally, where appropriate and possible, which can have valuable deterrent effects. Prosecutors may also consider whether a company is tracking data relating to disciplinary actions to measure effectiveness of the investigation and consequence management functions. This can include monitoring the number of compliance-related allegations that are substantiated, the average (and outlier) times to complete a compliance investigation, and the effectiveness and consistency of disciplinary measures across the levels, geographies, units or departments of an organization…Some companies have also enforced 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. 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…Compensation structures that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”
Clawbacks
With the Pilot Program and other announcements in the Monaco and Polite speeches, the DOJ has made clear that companies need to seek to recover amounts paid out to executives which were illegally received as corporate compensation. This could include both salary, stock options or similar payments or discretionary bonuses. Regarding your corporate clawback protocol itself, the ECCP poses the following questions:
All of this means every compliance program will need to analyze each of these components as set out. It will also require a review of executive contracts to determine if there are clawback provisions set out in each employment contract. If there are no such provisions, they will need to be inserted. Finally, what “specific examples of actions taken” does a company have to show to the DOJ should they come knocking?
Consequence Management
The DOJ also mandated that compliance programs take a deeper dive into their entire financial incentive program; both incentives and dis-incentives. While not previously discussed in speeches, these new requirements seem to flow from the general statements made by both Monaco and Polite over the past year. In this area, the ECCP mandates the following inquiries:
Obviously, there is some overlap with the clawback language but there is quite a bit new in these questions. The DOJ ties hotline and speak up reports directly to a company’s culture of compliance. This is almost a direct tie back to the findings of Kyle Welch in his seminal work on a speak up culture. But the DOJ goes on to ask about substantiation rates, closure rates, consistent and fair application of discipline (and rewards when called for) and root cause analysis; which are not simply technical aspects of compliance programs but are concrete steps companies can implement to engender trust with employees that their concerns will be taken seriously and then acted upon when they are raised. Once again, as with clawbacks, these are levels of analysis that many compliance programs have not yet taken but are now required to do so.
Join us tomorrow when we consider messaging apps under the revised ECCP.
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. In this episode, Matt and I dive into the hot topic of clawbacks, focusing on Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco’s new pilot program and Kenneth Polite’s take on prosecutorial discretion for organizations. Our hosts explore the opportunities for corporate compliance and HR personnel for clawback solutions and the use of the Federation Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). They also discuss the need for a thorough documentation of personnel involved with and/or accused of illegal conduct and the potential costs to shareholders. Bottom line: Tom Fox and Matt Kelly are here to take you on a deep dive into the complexities of clawbacks and help organizations get compliant and stay compliant.
Key Highlights:
Prosecutorial Discretion and Credit [00:05:24]
Implications of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on Corporate Compliance and HR [00:09:41]
The Mathematics of Corporate Policy Development and Management [00:13:59]
Corporate Compliance and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [00:17:47]
Balancing Compliance and Risk in Business Practices [00:21:49]
Notable Quotes:
1. “It is part of the department’s larger effort to hold individuals more accountable and to have companies be participants in that project and to have companies embrace the culture of compliance; how would you hold individuals accountable if you’re the company, you’d have that clawback clause over their head, and then you would now have more incentive to use it, which is not necessarily an easy thing.”
2. “What we expect companies that use programs to address not only employees who engaged and wrongdoing a connection with conduct under investigation, but also those who had supervisory authority over the employees or business area engaged in in the misconduct and knew of or were willfully blind to the misconduct.”
3. “You must have the clawback policies in place at the time of resolution, then get a reserve credit for those clawback compensation moneys that you must successively claw back within the term of the resolution.”
4. “If you try to recoup the compensation and fail, you’ll still be eligible for up to 25 percent of whatever you were trying to recoup.”
Resources
Matt in Radical Compliance
We are in the midst of a multipart review of last week’s speeches from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the recently concluded ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, held in Miami. Compliance professionals, white collar defense lawyers and indeed corporate executives will be talking about the past week in Miami for many moons to come. The speeches were made by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech) and they previewed a number of initiatives by the DOJ which every compliance professional will need to study in some detail. These new initiatives included:
The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks
Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP)
Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters
Over this series, I will be taking a deep dive into these speeches and new Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, Monitor Selection and Pilot Program on Incentives and Clawbacks. Today we take a deep dive into those portions of the Monaco and Polite Speeches which dealt with clawbacks or in the terminology of the ECCP-consequence management.
Monaco Speech
DAG Monaco discussed the development of the clawback policy 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. Monaco said, “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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (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.” Monaco concluded, “We intend this program to encourage companies who do not already factor compliance into compensation to retool their programs and get ahead of the curve.”
Polite Speech
As expected, 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.”
As a recovering trial lawyer, I know that 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.
Join me tomorrow as I begin an exploration of the updated Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.
We are in the midst of a multipart review of last week’s speeches from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the recently concluded ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, held in Miami. Compliance professionals, white collar defense lawyers and indeed corporate executives will be talking about the past week in Miami for many moons to come. The speeches were made by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech) and they previewed a number of initiatives by the DOJ which every compliance professional will need to study in some detail. These new initiatives included:
The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks
Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Updated March 2023)
Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters
Over this series, I will be taking a deep dive into these speeches and new Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, Monitor Selection and Pilot Program on Incentives and Clawbacks. Today we continue with an initial review of the Polite Speech.
Polite began with a clear plea for the righteousness of being a prosecutor. Interestingly he began by describing what he saw at the ABA White Collar conference in San Francisco, “During a short afternoon walk between the hotel and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, we saw homelessness, and drug addiction, and food insecurity, and lack of hygiene, and violence.” He went on to add “Human suffering. We see it in every city where this conference gathers, be it the Tenderloin area of San Francisco, Liberty City here in Miami, or the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. The same things could be found in nearly every town across this country. Across this globe. Right outside. Right around us. Right around you, if you decide to open your eyes and accept a broader definition of community.” From there he related being a DOJ prosecutor to a calling to help fix these problems but being “problem-solvers”.
He used these domestic urban ills to transition to what he called a ‘righteous’ prosecution of Claudia Patricia Diaz Guillen, the former National Treasurer of Venezuela and her husband. They were charged with accepting over $100 million “in bribes from a Venezuelan billionaire businessman for access to purchase bonds from the Venezuela National Treasury at a favorable exchange rate. All the while, millions of Venezuelans had to confront daily economic crisis, rampant inflation, and unimaginable poverty and hunger.” This is while “96% of Venezuelans lived in poverty.” He ended this section by noting the prosecution was “a virtuous case that spanned the globe to hold multiple corrupt actors accountable and remove corrupt leadership – this prosecution exemplifies what our prosecutors can do.”
Polite believes that there is a clear tie between poverty and corruption. (One reason the San Francisco remarks were so interesting.) This is why it is important to prosecute corrupt government officials such as Diaz because her actions keep the people of Venezuela 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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (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, we have to 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.”
He pointed to this level of international cooperation which “has also been critical to MLARS’s work on the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, which has targeted and restrained more than $3.6 billion relating to foreign official corruption and associated money laundering affecting the U.S. financial system.” As the US financial systems plays the central role in the world’s financial community and international banking system, the US MLARS Bank Integrity Unit (BIU) has worked to bring to justice “actors around the world seek to exploit the U.S. financial system, in some instances working with global financial institutions that facilitate their crimes.” Hence why the US and not Danske Bank’s home country of Denmark brought the criminal charges against the Banks for its role in a years-long money laundering operation out of its Estonia branch.
To demonstrate this commitment for the DOJ Polite stated, “since 2010, the BIU – with just 12 attorneys – has imposed more than $13 billion in financial penalties in 10 corporate criminal resolutions with global financial institutions for sanctions violations.” But more commitment is on the way as Polite pointed to “our Deputy Attorney General’s announcement yesterday of additional resources for the BIU and her focus on the intersection of national security and corporate prosecution. I know our BIU prosecutors will build upon their outstanding track record while continuing to work shoulder to shoulder with our partners in the National Security Division to achieve our united mission.”
Finally, in a most welcomed development, Polite stated “there’s no better way to broaden community than to speak your partners’ language – literally.” He announced the Criminal Division’s Office of Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training – or OPDAT – will re-issue the FCPA Resource Guide in Spanish later this month. Kudos to the DOJ for taking this step.
Join me tomorrow where I take a deep dive into clawbacks and other new components of a compliance program.
In the ‘60s there was a television show called That Was the Week That Was. As with many great US television shows, it started in the UK on the BBC. It ran on NBC and introduced an American audience to David Frost, from the original British cast. It brought weekly and topical satire to US television and some of the contributors were among the greatest comedians of their generation. They included Henry Morgan, Phyllis Newman, Pat Englund, Buck Henry, Bob Dishy, Doro Merande, Alan Alda, Sandy Baron, Tom Bosley, Jerry Damon, Stanley Grover, Burr Tillstrom’s Puppets and The Norman Paris Orchestra. I still remember the theme song as it was sung by Nancy Ames in addition to her participating in the show.
I thought of that TV show when I looked back at the two days of speeches from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the recent ABA 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, held in Miami. Compliance professionals, white collar defense lawyers and indeed corporate executives will be talking about the past week for many moons to come. The speeches were made by Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. (Polite Speech) and they previewed a number of initiatives by the DOJ which every compliance professional needs to study in some detail. These new initiatives included:
The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks
Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Updated March 2023)
Revised Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters
Over the next several blog posts, I will be taking a deep dive into these speeches and the new Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, Monitor Selection and Pilot Program on Incentives and Clawbacks. Today we begin with a review of the 2023 Monaco Speech.
Monaco began by referencing her October 2012 speech to the Fall White Collar Crime conference, noting she “directed some immediate policy changes to invigorate corporate criminal enforcement, and I did so based on a few fundamental principles: preventing misconduct before it happens; holding individual wrongdoers accountable; and deterring and punishing recidivism.”
Around that time Monaco announced the “Corporate Crime Advisory Group to recommend more advances, based on input, and this is important, input from outside as well as inside the department.” This led to the September 2022 announcement of the Monaco Doctrine as laid out in the Monaco Memo where the DOJ changed its focus to “promoting cultures of corporate compliance, while also ensuring consistency and predictability in the way the government treats corporate crime.” Her goal was to “empower companies to do the right thing, by investing in compliance, in culture and in good corporate citizenship — while at the same time empowering our prosecutors to hold accountable those who don’t follow the law.”
At the end of the day, perhaps the most significant pronouncement from Monaco was the following “in today’s complex and uncertain geopolitical – very uncertain quite frankly – geopolitical environment, corporate crime and national security are overlapping to a degree never seen before, and the department is retooling to meet that challenge.” This fits with the Biden Administration’s Strategy on Combatting Corruption, which elevated the fight against bribery and corruption through enforcement of laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to a National Security Issue. Of course, the Biden DOJ has said several times in the past that “Sanctions are the new FCPA” and Monaco reiterated that in her speech last week.
Monaco set the tone for the week by identifying five general areas of DOJ focus. (1) Inspiring a Culture of Compliance; (2) Voluntary Self-Disclosure Programs; (3) Promoting Compliance through Compensation and Clawback Programs; (4) Resource Commitments to Corporate Criminal Enforcement; and (5 ) Individual Accountability.
The Monaco Memo “emphasized the department’s commitment to finding the right incentives to promote and support a culture of corporate compliance.” Monaco hoped to do so by creating two new areas of focus in addition to those laid out in the FCPA Resource Guide, the 2017 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program and its 2020 Update and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) certification requirement. In the 2023 Monaco Speech, she stated, “I noted two new areas of particular focus: a cross-department approach to promoting voluntary self-disclosure and how compensation structures can foster responsible corporate behavior. We want companies to step up and own up when they discover misconduct and to use compensation systems to align their executives’ financial interests with the company’s interest in good corporate citizenship.”
What is interesting about these two components is that they previously existed but were made more important in the Monaco Memo. Clear rewards for self-disclosure have been a part of FCPA enforcement since 2016 with the initiation of the Pilot Program around self-disclosure. Financial incentives and penalties (carrots and sticks) have been a part of best practices compliance programs since at least 2004 and were included in the original 2012 FCPA Resource Guide. But now a company must engage in both actions to demonstrate a “culture of compliance” to obtain the presumption of a declination under the Corporate Enforcement Policy.
Seemingly buried in the speech is perhaps the most significant statement about white collar criminal enforcement. Monaco said, “Now, with respect to voluntary self-disclosure, I am pleased to report that, for the first time, every U.S. Attorney’s Office now has, and every component I should say, that prosecutes corporate crime, now has in place an operative, predictable and transparent voluntary self-disclosure program. These policies share a common principle: absent aggravating factors, no department component will seek a guilty plea where a company has voluntarily self-disclosed, cooperated and remediated the misconduct.” She went on to add, “Let me be very very clear. I want every general counsel, every executive and board member to take this message to heart: where your company discovers criminal misconduct, the pathway to the best resolution will involve prompt voluntary self-disclosure to the Department of Justice.” Her example was an excellent one: the ABB FCPA enforcement action.
Once again Monaco emphasized a part of every best practices compliance program over the past 20 years, financial incentives for doing business ethically and in compliance. However, in her 2023 Speech, she emphasized the disincentives or clawbacks. She stated, “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, under the pilot program, the Criminal Division will provide fine reductions to companies who seek to claw back compensation from corporate wrongdoers.”
Monaco said the goal is “to shift the burden of corporate wrongdoing away from shareholders, who frequently play no role in the misconduct, onto those directly responsible.” The DOJ will incentivize such behavior in the following manner. “At the outset of a criminal resolution, the resolving company 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. 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. And because we heard from stakeholders about how challenging and how expensive the pursuit of clawbacks can be, 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.”
This section of the speech deals with DOJ resource commitments but it is still significant. Here Monaco emphasized the intersection of corruption, money-laundering, sanctions and National Security. This continues the Biden Administration trend on this score. There are new and additional resources the DOJ is bringing to bear in all of these areas. This includes the international arena as well. But a huge part of this commitment is that companies are now seen in many ways as the front line of criminal enforcement through self-disclosure of illegal conduct. If the DOJ continues down this path, both the incentives for self-disclosure and cooperation as well as the pain the DOJ will bring for companies which do self-disclose will be significant. Monaco closed her speech with the following, “Investing now in a robust compliance program is good for business, and it is good for our collective economic and national security.”
As far back as 2015, in the Yates Memo, the DOJ has said they will emphasize individual accountability, through individual, as opposed to corporate, enforcement actions. In her speech, Monaco pointed to charges brought against two of the current most prominent alleged fraudsters, Sam Bankman-Fried and Carlos Watson and the convictions out of Theranos; Elizabeth Homes and Sunny Balwani. She also stated, “The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, for example, secured more individual convictions at trial last year than in any of the previous five years. So, our message is clear: the department will zealously pursue corporate crime in any industry, and we will hold wrongdoers accountable, no matter how prominent or powerful they are.” While this has yet not been seen in FCPA enforcement, perhaps it will be this year and beyond.
Join me tomorrow where I look at the Polite Speech.
