Tag: DAG Lisa Monaco

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program Through Culture: Day 1 – Introduction

In her October 2021 speech, presaging the Monaco Memo, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco talked at length about the importance of corporate culture. She noted, “Corporate culture matters. A corporate culture that fails to hold individuals accountable or fails to invest in compliance — or worse that thumbs its nose at compliance — leads to bad results. Let me also be clear: a company can fulfill its fiduciary duty to shareholders and maintain a commitment to compliance and lawfulness. Companies serve their shareholders when they proactively place compliance functions and spend resources anticipating problems. They do so both by avoiding regulatory actions in the first place and receiving credit from the government. Conversely, we will ensure the absence of such programs inevitably proves a costly omission for companies who end up the focus of department investigations.” These thoughts were formalized in the Monaco Memo.

What does all this mean for compliance professionals going forward? DOJ officials have emphasized that the changes laid out in the Monaco Memo and the requirements around CCO Certification are to empower compliance professionals. In the Monaco Speech, DAG Monaco stated, “Companies should feel empowered to do the right thing—to invest in compliance and culture and to step up and own up when misconduct occurs. Companies that do so will welcome the announcements today. For those who don’t, however, our Department prosecutors will be empowered, too—to hold accountable those who don’t follow the law.” However you may characterize it, I will channel my inner Glenn Fry (with a nod to Miami Vice) and simply say to CCOs and compliance professionals, “The Heat is On.”

Three Key Takeaway:

  1. The DOJ will now evaluate corporate culture in an enforcement action.
  2. You must assess, manage, monitor, and improve your culture.
  3. Corporate culture is now a key metric for regulators.
Categories
Blog

DAG Monaco on Cooperation and Compliance Incentives for M&A

Early in October at the 2023 SCCE Compliance and Ethics Institute, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco delivered a long-anticipated speech expanding and formalizing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) new Safe Harbor for mergers and acquisitions in the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) context. The latest M&A Safe Harbor expanded on an old and frankly cumbersome Opinion Release from 2008 and some old FCPA enforcement actions from the last decade to create a clear, concise, and most welcomed announcement.

The Halliburton Opinion Release (08-02) gave some very tight deadlines for engaging in due diligence post-acquisition and reporting to the DOJ. The deadlines were 90 days to identify and report high-risk agents, 120 days to identify and report medium-risk agents, and 180 days to identify and report low-risk agents. For those scoring at home, that is three, six, and nine months, which for most corporations is the blink of an eye.

Moreover, while the 2012 FCPA Resource Guide did provide some guidance on what may constitute a safe harbor, the word “may” was a sticking point for corporate management when deciding whether and how to proceed with a potential merger or acquisition. There is a big difference between a theoretical outcome and one that is concrete and presumptively available. Finally, a series of FCPA enforcement actions involved mergers and acquisitions. It was unclear when remediation of any issues must be completed, from 18 months to “as soon as is practicable.”

This new DOJ policy is then aimed at encouraging cooperation and compliance in the corporate world, particularly during acquisitions. This policy allows companies to avoid charges for compliance violations discovered during the acquisition process as long as specific deadlines are met. Compliance officers are crucial in this process, conducting due diligence before and after the acquisition.

Monaco stated, “We are announcing a Department-wide Safe Harbor Policy for voluntary self-disclosures in the mergers and acquisition process context. In the future, acquiring companies that promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct within the Safe Harbor period, cooperate with the ensuing investigation, and engage in requisite, timely, and appropriate remediation, restitution, and disgorgement will receive the presumption of declination.”

Under this new policy, acquiring companies will not be held accountable for aggravating factors at the acquisition target. This means that the acquiring company will not be responsible if there are compliance issues at the target company. However, there are concerns about how this policy will be executed and its potential impact on different enforcement actions.

A key element is the clear and concise timelines articulated by DAG Monaco. She stated, “To ensure consistency, I am instructing this Safe Harbor policy to be applied Department-wide. Each part of the Department will tailor its application of this policy to fit its specific enforcement regime and consider how it will be implemented.

To ensure predictability, we are setting clear timelines. As a baseline matter, to qualify for the Safe Harbor, companies must disclose misconduct discovered at the acquired entity within six months from the date of closing. That applies whether the misconduct was found pre- or post-acquisition.”

After that, “Companies will have a baseline of one year from the closing date to fully remediate the misconduct. These baselines are subject to a reasonableness analysis because we recognize deals differ and not every transaction is the same. So, depending on the specific facts, circumstances, and complexity of a particular transaction, Department prosecutors could extend those deadlines.”

One essential tradeoff in this policy is the balance between encouraging cooperation and holding companies accountable for their actions. On one hand, the policy incentivizes companies to disclose compliance violations and cooperate with the Justice Department voluntarily. This can lead to more effective enforcement and greater transparency in the corporate world. On the other hand, there is a risk that some companies may take advantage of this policy and try to cover up compliance violations.

Compliance officers also face challenges in this new policy. If they are not involved in pre-acquisition due diligence, it could be a red flag for their career security. There is a concern that unscrupulous management teams may try to close a deal without proper due diligence and then blame the compliance officer if issues arise later on. Compliance officers must proactively ensure their involvement in the acquisition process to protect themselves and their companies.

The enforcement of this policy, particularly in antitrust cases, is also a subject of curiosity and anticipation. It is unclear how the policy will apply to corporate misconduct beyond bribery and corruption or anti-competitive actions. There are questions about whether the default position of the DOJ antitrust division will be a declination or if they will still bring charges against companies involved in antitrust violations.

While this new policy is a step forward for compliance, there are still concerns about its effectiveness and potential abuse. The Justice Department is trying to balance providing incentives for cooperation and holding companies accountable for their actions. However, there is a need for further clarity and guidance on how this policy will be executed in practice.

Overall, the new policy on corporate compliance during acquisitions is an essential development in the corporate world. It highlights the importance of considering compliance issues when making decisions about acquisitions and encourages companies to take proactive steps to address compliance violations. Compliance officers play a crucial role in this process and must be vigilant in ensuring their involvement to protect themselves and their companies. The execution of this policy and its impact on different enforcement actions will be closely watched in the coming months.

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance – Episode 15 – The I Don’t Like it Edition

What happens when two top compliance commentators get together? They talk compliance, of course. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart in 2 Gurus Talk Compliance as they discuss the latest compliance issues in this week’s episode! In this episode, Tom and Kristy take on a wide variety of topics, including a visit to Florida Women.

The landscape of corporate compliance is ever-evolving, with recent developments posing new challenges and opportunities for businesses. Compliance is a dynamic process that requires constant monitoring and retrospective reviews to identify potential risks and changes. He also emphasizes the importance of involving compliance officers early in the due diligence process of mergers and acquisitions and acknowledges the complexities of managing conflicts of interest in networking and hiring. Tom and Kristy advocate for a proactive approach to compliance, highlighting the importance of regulatory resources such as the New York State Department of Financial Services’ cybersecurity rules. She also stresses the need for clarity and certainty in compliance practices, particularly in areas like mergers and acquisitions and conflicts of interest. Join Tom Fox and Kristy Grant-Hart as they delve deeper into these issues in the latest episode of the 2 Gurus Talk Compliance podcast.

 Highlights Include:

  1. Albemarle FCPA enforcement action. (FCPA Blog)
  2. DAG Monaco on more credit for self-disclosure, this time in M&A. (Radical Compliance)
  3. NYDFS Comments on proposed cyber disclosure amendments. (Compliance and Enforcement Blog)
  4. Michael Lewis and SBF. (The Dig)
  5. Identifying compliance blind spots. (CCI)
  6. Lawmakers Press NBA, Players Union on Forced Labor (WSJ)
  7. Can you tell the difference between acceptable networking and wrongful hiring practices? (FCPA Blog)
  8. Crypto Sector Seeks Lawyers, Compliance Officers After Reputational Hits (WSJ)
  9. Stop Obsessing About Work All the Time (WSJ)
  10. Two women stole bags of food from Florida Taco Bell during armed robbery, deputies say (Fox 25 Orlando)

Resources 

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Consulting

Tom

Threads

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: New M&A Safe Harbor

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. Are you looking for some hard-hitting insights on sanctions compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode, Tom and Matt consider the recent speech by DAG Lisa Monaco, creating a Safe Harbor for M&A under the FCPA and beyond.

The Justice Department has recently unveiled a new policy aimed at fostering cooperation and compliance within the corporate sector, especially during acquisitions. This policy, which offers companies the chance to avoid charges for compliance violations discovered during the acquisition process, has sparked a lively discussion among compliance experts. Matt views this policy with a mix of curiosity and uncertainty. He acknowledges its potential benefits but also raises concerns about its practical execution, particularly in relation to antitrust enforcement and the treatment of companies new to acquisitions.

The application of the policy across various DOJ divisions and its interactions with other enforcement organizations intrigue Tom. He also questions whether acquiring companies will still receive a “free pass” if the acquired company engages in antitrust behavior. To delve deeper into these perspectives and explore the potential implications of this new policy, join Tom Fox and Matt Kelly in the latest episode of the Compliance into the Weeds podcast.

Key Highlights:

  • Cooperation and Compliance Incentives for M&A
  • Exemption of Acquisition Target’s Aggravating Factors
  • DOJ’s Emphasis on Pre-Acquisition Compliance Involvement
  • Enforcement Policy’s Impact and Curiosity

 Resources:

Matt in Radical Compliance

Tom 

Threads

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Everything Compliance

Episode 114, The Monaco, Polite & ECCP Edition

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.

  1. Matt Kelly looks at the changes around clawbacks. He shouts out to the PCAOB for reminding folks that cryptocurrency ‘reserve reports’ are not worth the paper they are printed on.
  2. Jonathan Marks considers what the two speeches and changes in the ECCP mean for corporate governance. He shouts out to US House of Representatives for overwhelmingly voting to investigate the origins of Covid-19.
  3. Tom Fox looks at the changes to incentives, both financial and non-financial in the 2023 ECCP. He rants about the Tennessee legislature attempt to ban Shakespeare, movies such as Tootie and Some Like It Hot, politicians such as George Santos; all in the guise of banning drag shows.
  1. Special Guest Scott Garland looks at the changes in the monitor selection process and what that means for the line attorney prosecuting a FCPA violation. He shouts out to the Department of Justice for their continued evolution in their thinking about compliance and compliance programs.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

  • Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
  • Karen Woody – One of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu
  • Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
  • Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com
  • Jonathan Marks is Partner, Firm Practice Leader – Global Forensic, Compliance & Integrity Services at Baker Tilly. Marks can be reached at marks@bakertilly.com

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.

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – Clawbacks

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.

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – The Monaco Speech

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.

  1. A Culture of Compliance

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.

  1. Voluntary Self-Disclosure

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.

  1. Compensation and Clawbacks

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.”

  1. Resource Commitments

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.”

  1. Individual Accountability

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.

Categories
Blog

Monaco Memo: A Jolt for Compliance: Part 3 – Cooperation and Compliance Program Evaluation

Today, we continue our exploration of the Monaco Memo by considering the sections relating to the evaluation of cooperation during the pendency of the investigation and the evaluation of a company’s compliance program at the conclusion of the resolution. These portions of the Monaco Memo should be studied intently by every compliance professional as they lay out what the Department of Justice (DOJ) will require to grant discounts under the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.

Evaluation of Cooperation

Cooperation with the DOJ during the pendency of an investigation has always been a critical factor of the overall costs of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) resolution since this factor can be added as a discount under the US Sentencing Guidelines and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. Essentially a company can double dip in discounts with superior cooperation. Indeed, we have seen companies have the fines and penalties increase by tens of millions when they failed to cooperate.

The Monaco Memo acknowledges what a corporation can obtain by stating, “Cooperation can be a mitigating factor, by which a corporation – just like any other subject of a criminal investigation – can gain credit in a case that is appropriate for indictment and prosecution.” Further, “Credit for cooperation takes many forms and is calculated differently based on the degree to which a corporation cooperates with the government’s investigation and the commitment that the corporation demonstrates in doing so. The level of a corporation’s cooperation can affect the form of the resolution, the applicable fine range, and the undertakings involved in the resolution.”

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Marshall Miller, recently said in a speech, “I trust one thing came through loud and clear: the Department is placing a new and enhanced premium on voluntary self-disclosure.” This is where the timeliness issue becomes so critical. Miller went on to state, “The DAG also provided important guidance on corporate cooperation. The key point I want to highlight relates to timeliness. In building cases against culpable individuals, we have heard one consistent message from our line attorneys: delay is the prosecutor’s enemy — it can lead to a lapse of statutes of limitation, dissipation of evidence, and fading of memories. The Department will expect cooperating companies to produce hot documents or evidence in real time. And your clients can expect that their cooperation will be evaluated with timeliness as a principal factor. Undue or intentional delay in production of documents relating to individual culpability will result in reduction or denial of cooperation credit. Where misconduct has occurred, everyone involved — from prosecutors to outside counsel to corporate leadership — should be “on the clock,” operating with a true sense of urgency.”

Miller fleshed out the Monaco Memo regarding this DOJ expectation when he intoned that the DOJ expects “cooperating companies to produce hot documents or evidence in real time.” Moreover, “The key point I want to highlight relates to timeliness.” This could mean literally when you find a smoking, still hot or even cold gun you had better pick up the phone and call the DOJ. Finally, when it comes to cooperation credit the DOJ will evaluate companies “timeliness as a principal factor.” It cannot be stated any plainer or more simply than that.

Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

Equally important for compliance professionals was the section on evaluating compliance program. The DOJ has presented significant information to the compliance community with the release of the 2019 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs and its 2020 Update. The Monaco Memo recognizes these documents as key components for the DOJ to review compliance programs of companies under investigation. Moreover, although there is no compliance defense to prosecution of illegal conduct, such compliance programs have “a direct and significant impact on the terms of a corporation’s potential resolution with the Department.”

To that end, the Monaco Memo directs prosecutors to “evaluate a corporation’s compliance program as a factor in determining the appropriate terms for a corporate resolution, including whether an independent compliance monitor is warranted. Prosecutors should 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. The same criteria should be used in each instance.”

However, the Monaco Memo focused attention on an area given little weight previously in determining the effectiveness of an effective compliance program, that being clawbacks. While compensation, particularly in the form of bonus or other compensation based on positive compliance actions, has long been a part of a best practices compliance program (the carrot) we have not previously seen its equivalent disincentive (the stick).

The Monaco Memo stated, “Corporations can best deter misconduct if they make clear that all individuals who engage in or contribute to criminal misconduct will be held personally accountable. In assessing a compliance program, prosecutors should consider whether the corporation’s compensation agreements, arrangements, and packages (the “compensation systems”) incorporate elements ­ such as compensation clawback provisions – that enable penalties to be levied against current or former employees, executives, or directors whose direct or supervisory actions or omissions contributed to criminal conduct. Since misconduct is often discovered after it has occurred, prosecutors should examine whether compensation systems are crafted in a way that allows for retroactive discipline, including through the use of clawback measures, partial escrowing of compensation, or equivalent arrangements.” This is a change.

Miller expanded on this when he said the DOJ would start with two questions:

  1. Has the company clawed back incentives paid out to employees and supervisors who engaged in or did not stop wrongdoing?
  2. Is the company targeting bonuses to employees and supervisors who set the right tone, make compliance a priority, and build an ethical culture?

Miller went on to add, “What we expect now, in 2022, is that companies will have robust and regularly deployed clawback programs. All too often we see companies scramble to dust off and implement dormant policies once they are in the crosshairs of an investigation. Companies should take note: compensation clawback policies matter, and those policies should be deployed regularly. A paper policy not acted upon will not move the needle — it is really no better than having no policy at all.”

My suggestion is that you develop a clawback policy and write it into the contracts of your senior management going forward.

I hope you will join me tomorrow where I look at guidance around monitors and monitorships.

Categories
FCPA Compliance Report

James Koukios on the Monaco Speech

In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by fan favorite James Koukios, partner at Morrison and Foerster. In this episode we take a deep dive into the Lisa Monaco speech from October and related remarks from other DOJ representatives about the DOJ refocus on white collar enforcement and related issues. Highlights of this podcast include:

·       Who is the DAG and what does that position entail?

·       Reinstatement of Yates Memo.

·       Does this change an investigation focus?

·       The new focus on culture and how do you assess corporate culture?

·       What about reports of all violations, enforcements and even investigations even is outside FCPA?

·       What are the implications of this change?

·       How will all this work with current FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy?

·       The revocation of Benczkowski Memo. What are the implications?

·       The new focus on monitorships?

·       What about recidivists or those who fail to meet the obligations of their DPA/NPA?

Resources

James Koukios on the MoFo website.