Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: August 5, 2024 – The Dept. of Misery 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • HR: the Department of Misery? (NYT)
  • Income inequality and corruption .  (The Economic Times)
  • Can a corporate vote overturn a court decision? (FT)
  • DOJ announces whistleblower incentive program. (WSJ)

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

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Saga: Compliance, Accountability, and the Path Forward

When it comes to corporate accountability, few cases are as significant as the ongoing litigation involving Boeing. Since the 737 MAX safety scandal erupted in 2021, the company has been embroiled in a complex legal journey. In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a proposed Plea Agreement with Boeing in the District Court in Dallas, Texas, under Judge Reed O’Connor. This filing stems from the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in 2021, and it underscores some critical issues that every compliance professional should be acutely aware of.

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airplane evaluation group. This plea involves Boeing paying a $243 million fine, predetermined in the 2021 DPA. However, the Plea Agreement does not conclude the matter; it introduces several critical facets that warrant detailed exploration.

A poignant and complex aspect of this case is the involvement of the families of victims from the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. Under their statutory rights, these families participate in the proceedings and seek restitution for their profound losses. The court will determine whether any restitution should be awarded, a process fraught with emotional and legal challenges. The families argue that the proposed penalties are insufficient and that Boeing should explicitly acknowledge its responsibility for the tragic events.

Central to this plea agreement is the appointment of a Compliance Monitor tasked with overseeing Boeing’s adherence to compliance and safety protocols over the next three years. This monitor will be selected through a process involving the DOJ and Boeing, with a noteworthy exclusion: the district court will have no oversight of the monitor’s activities. This exclusion raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability, echoing past controversies in similar cases, such as the environmental crime case involving Carnival Cruise Lines.

The Compliance Monitor’s role in this case is unusually expansive. Beyond traditional compliance responsibilities—such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and training—the monitor will address anti-fraud measures, safety, and quality assurance/control (QA/QC) issues. This broader remit is essential, given the systemic failures at Boeing that contributed to the 737 MAX disasters.

The DOJ’s findings highlight disturbing lapses in Boeing’s safety and quality records. Employees reported feeling pressured to prioritize productivity and financial performance over safety and quality, a cultural flaw at the heart of the compliance breaches. This pressure led to out-of-sequence work, poor record-keeping, and inadequate safety audits, all indicative of a deeper systemic problem.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive culture-focused approach. The Compliance monitor must enforce existing standards and foster a culture of integrity and transparency within Boeing. This involves ensuring that employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation and that safety protocols are rigorously followed and documented.

The families of the crash victims are not mere bystanders in this process. They have voiced strong Objections to the Plea Agreement, particularly its perceived leniency and the lack of direct accountability for senior executives. They argue that the agreement implicitly exonerates those responsible for the safety lapses, a concern that resonates with many compliance professionals who advocate for robust accountability at all levels of an organization.

The district court’s exclusion from supervising the compliance monitor is unprecedented and troubling. In previous cases, judicial oversight has been crucial in ensuring that monitorships lead to genuine remediation. The current arrangement’s lack of transparency—where the monitor’s identity and activities are kept under seal—further exacerbates these concerns. Transparency is a cornerstone of effective compliance and accountability, and its absence could undermine the entire process.

For Boeing to restore its reputation and regain public trust, it must go beyond the minimum requirements of the plea agreement. This involves a commitment to comprehensive remediation, encompassing cultural change, structural reforms, and rigorous safety and compliance standards enforcement.

The Compliance Monitor’s broader remit is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by genuine transparency and accountability. This includes involving the victims’ families meaningfully through regular updates and consultations and ensuring their concerns are addressed substantively.

The Boeing case is a stark reminder of the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and accountability in the corporate world. It highlights the devastating consequences of systemic failures and the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms. As compliance professionals, we must advocate for comprehensive and transparent processes that ensure compliance with legal standards and foster a culture of integrity and responsibility.

Ultimately, true remediation and accountability are in the best interests of all stakeholders—from the victims’ families seeking justice to the company itself, striving to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust. Boeing’s path forward is clear: It must commit to rigorous compliance, transparent practices, and a culture prioritizing safety and integrity above all else. Only then can it hope to move beyond the shadows of the 737 MAX scandal and emerge again as a leader in the aviation industry.

Categories
10 For 10

10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For The Week Ending August 3, 2024

Welcome to 10 For 10, the podcast which brings you the week’s Top 10 compliance stories in one podcast each week.

Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance brings to you, the compliance professional, the compliance stories you need to be aware of to end your busy week. Sit back, and in 10 minutes hear about the stories every compliance professional should be aware of from the prior week.

Every Saturday, 10 For 10 highlights the most important news, insights, and analysis for the compliance professional, all curated by the Voice of Compliance, Tom Fox. Get your weekly filling of compliance stories with 10 for 10, a podcast produced by the Compliance Podcast Network.

  • The EU investigates Chinese corruption in Cyprus. (FT)
  • US aviation company accused of bribery in South Africa. (Business Insider)
  • Glencore trader criminally charged by SFO for bribery. (FT)
  • Meta agrees to pay the state of Texas a $1.2 billion fine. (Texas Tribune)
  • FirstEnergy loses the privilege ruling. (Reuters)
  • Are corporate criminal convictions ‘just a footnote’?   (WSJ)
  • State Street agreed to a $7.5 million fine for Russia’s sanctions violations. (WSJ)
  • Mozambique wins the ‘hidden debt’ case. (Barron’s)
  • The top Trump bundler connected the FirstEnergy corruption scandal. (Ohio Capital Journal)
  • Raytheon (RTX) sets aside $959 million for pricing, corruption probe fine.   (Bloomberg)

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

You can check out the Daily Compliance News for four curated compliance and ethics related stories each day, here.

Connect with Tom:

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Monitorship: Memo to Attorney General Garland and Kelly Ortberg

To: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Boeing CEO Robert ‘Kelly’ Ortberg

From: Tom Fox

Re: The Boeing Monitorship

===============================================================

Gentlemen

I have written blog posts and articles about the proposed Plea Agreement negotiated between Boeing and the Department of Justice (DOJ). As the leaders of both organizations, I wanted to address you both directly.

To General Garland, this is the most important monitorship in the history of the DOJ.

To CEO, Ortberg-Boeing has to turn around its culture completely.

To both of you, business as usual will not suffice.

The DOJ must start with full transparency in the process, for sunshine in the light of day is always the best disinfectant. There must be full transparency in the selection process and the oversight of the Monitorship itself, with a party outside the DOJ and Boeing overseeing this process. In other words, it cannot simply be a process where the DOJ decides who will be the monitor, tells the court its selection, and then the DOJ goes off to oversee the process and, in three years, tells us whether Boeing has met the terms of the Monitorship.

First, completing the Plea Agreement by fulfilling the terms laid out must be a condition of the Probation, which the Court must approve. Second, this process must be overseen by the District Court. The Monitor should report to the Court or a court-appointed Special Master to determine whether Boeing has met the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations.” Both parties must realize that Boeing’s culture is broken and must be fixed. This is beyond policies and procedures and a best practices compliance program. This is fixing Boeing’s DNA.

The DOJ recognized that it is more than compliance at Boeing, which is broken; it starts with culture and moves to safety, QA/QC, and even down to record and document keeping. It is far beyond the current mandate of the Plea Agreement, which states that the Monitor should test “the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws.”

At least this is a decent start, but there are so many other areas that Boeing, the DOJ, and the Monitor must fix. I urged the DOJ to ‘Think Big’ about this monitorship. It concerns not only fraud and record keeping but also culture, safety, QA/QC, compliance, Speak Up and Listen Up, Supply Chain, fraud, Export Control, Sanctions, and a wide variety of other areas not addressed in the Plea Agreement.

Put all of that responsibility on the Monitor but make sure the Monitor has the resources to oversee this work for all of the stakeholders involved: Boeing, its shareholders, the victims’ families, employees, third parties, the U.S. government, Boeing’s customers and the U.S. and global flying public. It all starts at the top of the organization. The Monitor must not simply assess the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to and effective implementation of the corporate compliance program “as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct”; both the Board and senior management must lead this effort by example.

Finally, the DOJ must get this right. Everyone knows the DOJ’s failures from the 2008 financial crisis to prosecute any bank meaningfully. The phrase ‘too big to fail’ has entered the Lexicon as a byword for corporate malfeasance that gets off with ZERO consequences. This matter is much more important than those banks. It concerns the U.S.’s flagship airline manufacturer and whether it can be turned around through government oversight. If the DOJ does not get this Monitorship right, it will demonstrate once and for a time the failure of this program as a tool to fix a broken business that violates the law multiple times.

But this is not all on the backs of the DOJ or the Monitor. Boeing has an equally key role in this Monitorship. That is why the role of the new CEO is so important. Kelly Ortberg must fully embrace this monitorship and all it will entail to the company as the last and best way to turn it around. He comes from but is outside the organization, so he is not tainted with the company’s prior cultural miasma. Further, he comes from a former supplier to Boeing, Rockwell International. This means he knows the business, and he knows Boeing.

His main focus will be to turn around the company’s manufacturing side and create a culture where employees have enough trust in their employer to raise their hands and speak up when they see something wrong. They also know that the company will not harass or terminate them for doing so. In short, he must set the correct cultural tone and go into the weeds to fix how the company builds planes.

This focus requires Ortberg to fully embrace the Monitorship and a Monitor selected with full transparency and oversight by the Court. Ortberg should welcome the opportunity to turn Boeing around literally with all the help he can garner, not do as his predecessors did with so much opaqueness, where they clearly did not accept their responsibility to fix the company’s broken culture.

Finally, Ortberg must reach out to the victims’ families of the two 737 MAX crashes and listen to their concerns. The victims’ families’ interests are aligned with Boeing on one key point: They do not want any family to go through what they had to go through. Ortberg’s meeting with and listening to the victims’ families can go a long way toward their healing.

Boeing is a key component in U.S. national security. Boeing provides advanced missile defense systems, including the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which protects the United States from ballistic missile attacks. The company also offers solutions for tracking and monitoring space objects, which is vital for maintaining the safety and security of space operations. Boeing is also involved in the Internal Space Station (ISS), orbital test vehicles, and deep space exploration.

In short, no single institution is as important to the U.S. in manufacturing as Boeing. Nearly 200 million Americans who fly in Boeing planes depend on Boeing to get it right. The U.S. (and the world) economy needs the drive that Boeing provides. The U.S. national security depends on a well-functioning Boeing to lead the technological drive to protect the U.S. for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. Boeing needs to continue its work as one of the leading companies in space exploration. Lastly, and indeed not least, the families of the victims of the two 737 MAX crashes should receive some justice for all they have been through and then seeing Boeing not live up to its agreement in the original DPA or worse for there to be more failures under this Plea Agreement.

So one final plea to General Garland and CEO Ortberg-Get it Right This Time

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Plea Agreement – A Major Disconnect

In its proposed Plea Agreement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lays out Boeing’s abject failures, which led the DOJ to conclude that the underlying Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) from 2021 has been breached. The DOJ stated

  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to “create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code”;
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to implement “compliance policies and procedures designed to reduce the prospect of violations of U.S. fraud laws and the Company’s compliance code” and
  • Boeing failed to fully satisfy the requirement to appropriately develop and adjust “compliance policies and procedures based on a periodic risk assessment addressing the individual circumstances of the Company” [citations omitted]

As the victims’ families noted in their Objections to the Plea Agreement, “The Government told the Court that the Justice Department was “best positioned to implement the DPA and evaluate Boeing’s compliance with these rigorous requirements. The Fraud Section has compliance experts who routinely evaluate compliance programs and oversee corporate monitorships and self-reporting.” And Boeing chimed in with a similar tale, recounting that “DOJ has been vigilant and thorough. They’re professional, they probe, and they make suggestions, and as you would imagine, Boeing accepts those suggestions. Boeing has been vigilant and thorough, too. We sincerely believe the system is working and that any further monitor or examiner, reporting, would be duplicative to DOJ oversight and counterproductive to the processes that are operative now.” [citations omitted]

There was a major disconnect between what Boeing agreed to in the DPA, meeting its obligations under the DPA, and the DOJ oversight. The DOJ and Boeing want the district court to approve the same process for a Compliance Monitor in this Plea Agreement. The Plea Agreement states

Probation Condition – Retention of Independent Compliance Monitor. A condition of probation shall be that the Defendant retain an Independent Compliance Monitor, as provided in Paragraph 7(j). However, the probation condition is limited to the retention of the Independent Compliance Monitor—not oversight of the Independent Compliance Monitor or the Company’s compliance with the Independent Compliance Monitor’s recommendations. Instead, the Independent Compliance Monitor will report to and be overseen by the Offices. The Independent Compliance Monitor’s selection process, mandate, duties, review, and certification as described in Paragraphs 29-37 and Attachment D, and the Defendant’s compliance obligations as described in Paragraphs 7(k), 8 and 9 and Attachment C, are not conditions of probation. [emphasis supplied]

This means Boeing agrees to retain a Compliance Monitor only under this Plea Agreement. The DOJ is asking the court to allow it to fully oversee the monitor selection process and the ongoing work of the Compliance Monitor, with no other involvement or oversight, just as the DOJ did under the original DPA, when, at least according to the DOJ, the original oversight was such an utter failure it leads to this guilty plea.

According to the Plea Agreement,  “the Independent Compliance Monitor will evaluate, in the manner set forth below, the effectiveness of the Company’s compliance program and internal controls, record-keeping, policies, and procedures as they relate to the Company’s current and ongoing compliance with U.S. fraud laws, particularly in connection with interactions with any domestic or foreign government agency, with a focus on the integration of its compliance program with its safety and quality programs as necessary to detect and deter violations of anti-fraud laws or policies, and take such reasonable steps as, in his or her view, may be necessary to fulfill the foregoing mandate (the “Mandate”). This mandate shall include an assessment of the Board of Directors and senior management’s commitment to, and effective implementation of, the corporate compliance program described in Attachment C of the Agreement as necessary to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of the Company’s misconduct,”. Note that the Monitor will only ‘assess’ whether the Board and senior management are committed to such a program, not make it so.

What does this mean for the Monitor? This means that the Monitor will oversee Boeing’s integration of its ethics and compliance program with its safety and quality programs into a single system that treats safety and quality issues as defects in the corporate culture. This will occur while the Monitor oversees Boeing, creating and fostering a culture of ethics and compliance with the law in its day-to-day operations. Yet again, it will only happen with DOJ oversight of the entire process.

What is needed here is transparency. Unfortunately for the victims’ families and all other stakeholders in getting Boeing uprighted, this Plea Agreement does not bring the most effective disinfectant that can be brought to bear on corporate misconduct to the light of day.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide – Step 9 – Internal Controls

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo outline the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a complete declination. All of the actions you can take come from recent DOJ prosecutions under the FCPA and speeches from DOJ representatives. This podcast, sponsored by Ethico, is the companion series to the book The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action. Today, we discuss lesson number nine: internal controls.

Tom and Nick delve into the importance of internal controls in compliance, emphasizing the pivotal role they play in business operations. After studying the COSO Framework, Tom shares his transformation into a firm believer in internal controls, underscoring that robust financial controls can cover a significant portion of compliance requirements. They discuss real-world examples, including SAP’s lack of payment process controls and ABB’s successful avoidance of a monitor through proactive measures. The episode highlights the necessity of continuous improvement and collaboration between legal, financial, and business units to ensure the effectiveness of internal controls and the appropriate handling of overrides. The session concludes with a nod to the upcoming episode on speak-up, triage, and internal investigation.

Key Highlights and Issues

  • The Importance of Internal Controls
  • Financial Controls and Compliance
  • Continuous Improvement in Internal Controls
  • Effective Collaboration and Overrides

Resources:

Nick Gallo on LinkedIn

Ethico

The FCPA Survival Guide: Surviving and Thriving a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Action

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The Boeing Monitorship – Compliance, Accountability, and the Path Forward

Regarding corporate accountability and the often murky waters of compliance, few cases are as illustrative and significant as the ongoing litigation involving Boeing. Since the 737 MAX safety scandal erupted in 2021, the company has been embroiled in a complex legal journey. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a proposed Plea Agreement with Boeing in the District Court in Dallas, Texas. This filing stems from the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in 2021, and it underscores some critical issues that every compliance professional should be acutely aware of.

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airplane evaluation group. This plea involves Boeing paying a $243 million fine, predetermined in the 2021 DPA. However, the plea agreement does not conclude the matter; it introduces several critical facets that warrant detailed exploration.

Matt Kelly, who was over in Radical Compliance, also looked at the compliance spending requirement agreed to by Boeing. As laid out in the Plea Agreement, Boeing must “make a sustained monetary investment in its compliance and safety programs of at least $455,000,000, which, on an annualized basis, is an amount equal to at least approximately 75 percent more than the company’s expenditure on compliance in fiscal year 2024.

Now, let’s do some math. If Boeing is supposed to spend $455 million over its three-year probation period, that’s an average of $151.6 million per year.” But here is the bottom line. It “means the company was devoting 0.12 percent of total revenue to its compliance program.”

A poignant and complex aspect of this case is the involvement of the families of victims from the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. Under their statutory rights, these families participate in the proceedings and seek restitution for their profound losses. The court will determine whether any restitution should be awarded, a process fraught with emotional and legal challenges. The families argue that the proposed penalties are insufficient and that Boeing should explicitly acknowledge its responsibility for the tragic events.

The families of the crash victims are not mere bystanders in this process. They have strongly objected to the plea agreement, particularly its perceived leniency and the lack of direct accountability for senior executives. They argue that the agreement implicitly exonerates those responsible for the safety lapses. This concern resonates with many compliance professionals who advocate for robust accountability at all levels of an organization.

Central to this plea agreement is the appointment of an independent compliance monitor tasked with overseeing Boeing’s adherence to compliance and safety protocols over the next three years. This monitor will be selected through a process involving the DOJ and Boeing, with a noteworthy exclusion: the district court will have no oversight of the monitor’s activities. This exclusion raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability, echoing past controversies in similar cases, such as the environmental crime case involving Carnival Cruise Lines.

The compliance monitor’s role in this case is unusually expansive. Beyond traditional compliance responsibilities—such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and training—the monitor will address anti-fraud measures, safety, and quality assurance/control (QA/QC) issues. This broader remit is essential, given the systemic failures at Boeing that contributed to the 737 MAX disasters.

The DOJ’s findings highlight disturbing lapses in Boeing’s safety and quality records. Employees reported feeling pressured to prioritize productivity and financial performance over safety and quality, a cultural flaw at the heart of the compliance breaches. This pressure led to out-of-sequence work, poor record-keeping, and inadequate safety audits, all indicative of a deeper systemic problem.

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach. The compliance monitor must enforce existing standards and foster a culture of integrity and transparency within Boeing. This involves ensuring that employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation and that safety protocols are rigorously followed and documented.

The district court’s exclusion from supervising the compliance monitor is unprecedented and troubling. In previous cases, judicial oversight has been crucial in ensuring that monitorships lead to genuine remediation. The current arrangement’s lack of transparency—where the monitor’s identity and activities are kept under seal—further exacerbates these concerns. Transparency is a cornerstone of effective compliance and accountability, and its absence could undermine the entire process.

For Boeing to restore its reputation and regain public trust, it must go beyond the minimum requirements of the plea agreement. This involves a commitment to comprehensive remediation, encompassing cultural change, structural reforms, and rigorous safety and compliance standards enforcement.

The compliance monitor’s broader remit is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by genuine transparency and accountability. This includes involving the victims’ families meaningfully through regular updates and consultations and ensuring their concerns are addressed substantively.

The Boeing case is a stark reminder of the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and accountability in the corporate world. It highlights the devastating consequences of systemic failures and the urgent need for robust oversight mechanisms. As compliance professionals, we must advocate for comprehensive and transparent processes that ensure compliance with legal standards and foster a culture of integrity and responsibility.

Ultimately, true remediation and accountability are in the best interests of all stakeholders—from the victims’ families seeking justice to the company itself, striving to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust. Boeing’s path forward is clear: It must commit to rigorous compliance, transparent practices, and a culture prioritizing safety and integrity. Only then can it hope to move beyond the shadows of the 737 MAX scandal and emerge again as a leader in the aviation industry.

Categories
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: The Boeing Plea Agreement – Questions, Questions, Questions

The award winning, Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which takes a deep dive into a compliance related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject.

Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds!

In this episode Tom Fox and Matt Kelly take a deep dive into the Plea Agreement filed by the DOJ in the Boeing criminal case.

Today we delve into the proposed plea agreement between the Department of Justice and Boeing, following violations of the company’s 2021 Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). We discuss the detailed aspects of the plea, including a $243 million criminal penalty, a $455 million compliance investment plan, a three-year prosecutor probation with a compliance monitor, and a unique interaction between Boeing’s board and the families of crash victims.

Matt and Tom also explore Boeing’s obligations to integrate safety and quality programs with its ethics and compliance initiatives, and the implications of these stringent new requirements.

Key Highlights:

  • Boeing’s Compliance and Safety Issues
  • Expansion of Corporate Compliance Role
  • Implications for Boeing’s Compliance Culture
  • Monitor, Oversight, and Victim’s Families
  • Role of the Board and Compliance Spending
  • Future Considerations and CCO Certification

Resources:

Matt in Radical Compliance

Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

 Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: July 30, 2024 – The Hidden Debt 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 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.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Mozambique wins the ‘hidden debt’ case.   (Barron’s)
  • The ABA says lawyer’s using AI must heed ethical rules. (Reuters)
  • DOJ says the short seller used bait and switch.   (NYT)
  • Julius Baer was criticized yet again. (Bloomberg)

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

Categories
Blog

The Proposed Boeing Deal: Part 1 – The Monitorship and Meeting Victims’ Families

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed its Plea Agreement in the wake of the Boeing guilty plea. Due to Boeing’s legal challenges, some probation conditions have been imposed to ensure the company adheres to enhanced compliance and safety standards. Over the next few blog posts, I will consider this Plea Agreement, whether it fits the unique situation, and whether it will ensure that Boeing can move forward out of its miasma and the dysfunctional culture at the company. In Part 1, I begin by considering some of these critical conditions around the Monitor, the proposed Monitorship, and the treatment of the victims’ families of the two 737 Max crashes.

Retention of an Independent Compliance Monitor

One condition of Boeing’s probation is the mandatory retention of an Independent Compliance Monitor. This role is compulsory for overseeing Boeing’s compliance efforts, though it’s important to note that the Monitor’s oversight is limited to the activities prescribed in Paragraph 7(j) of the agreement. Perhaps most notably, the DOJ says that the Court will have DOJ no role in the Monitor selection or Monitor oversight. The Monitor will report directly to the DOJ rather than the Court or other independent body, ensuring a lack of transparency.

The Monitor’s responsibilities, selection process, and scope of duties are outlined in Paragraphs 29-37 and Attachment D of the agreement. This setup is designed to reinforce the independence and effectiveness of the compliance oversight. Somewhat counter-intuitively, Boeing’s adherence to the Monitor’s recommendations is not a direct condition of probation, underscoring the Monitor’s role as an independent entity focused on oversight rather than enforcement while at the same time lessening the overall incentives for Boeing to comply with the Monitor’s recommendations.

Safety and Compliance Investment

Boeing must invest at least $455 million in its compliance, safety, and quality programs over probation. This investment represents a 75% increase over the company’s planned expenditures for fiscal year 2024, reflecting that Boeing must commit to elevating compliance standards and then make that investment.

This financial commitment is intended to support internal improvements and implement recommendations from the Independent Compliance Monitor. However, it does not cover the Monitor’s fees and costs, ensuring the funds are dedicated to genuine compliance and safety enhancements. Boeing must periodically, at least annually, provide proof of these investments to the overseeing offices and the Probation Office, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Engagement with Crash Victim Families

In a move no doubt aimed at the families of the two 737 MAX crash victims’,  one of Boeing’s probation conditions includes a mandatory meeting between its Board of Directors and the families of the victims of crashes involving Boeing aircraft. This meeting must occur within four months of sentencing and aims to provide a platform for the families to convey the impact of Boeing’s conduct and offer recommendations for improving the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programs.

Translation Services: Boeing must arrange and pay for interpreters, if needed, covering languages such as Amharic, Bahasa, French, German, Mandarin, and Norwegian.

In-person Attendance: At least 80% of Boeing’s Board members are required to attend in person, although virtual attendance is allowed for those outside the U.S.

Confirmation of Meeting: Within three business days of the meeting, Boeing must confirm with the overseeing and probation offices that the meeting occurred.

You will note that nothing requires Boeing to pay for the travel and accommodations of the victims’ families to this meeting. Equally importantly, nothing requires Boeing to implement any of the victims’ families’ suggestions or recommendations. Given how poorly Boeing has treated the victims’ families and the lack of trust between the parties, it is challenging to envision whether this initiative in the Plea Agreement will satisfy the victims’ families or if Boeing will take any of their recommendations seriously.

These probation conditions imposed on Boeing highlight the importance of independent oversight, significant investment in compliance infrastructure, and direct engagement with affected stakeholders in corporate compliance programs. However, the DOJ has not accepted the premise that it and Boeing need to ‘Go Big in the Monitor or oversight process. What will the Court do with this DOJ approach? Perhaps, but given how this case has gone since the original Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), the Court may want greater oversight, transparency, and a role in the future.