Categories
Blog

Boeing: Accept the Omnibus Monitor Approach

I recently wrote a series of blog posts and articles on why the Department of Justice (DOJ) should think big and go big with a completely new approach to the monitorship for Boeing under its agreement to take a guilty plea. Now, I want to turn to Boeing and appeal to the company directly, not to fight the biggest monitorship ever, but to embrace and use this opportunity to rebuild the company, in all aspects, literally from the ground up. Boeing is broken, and now it is facing a guilty charge. Boeing must not fight the monitorship or its scope in any way, shape, or form.

The interests involved with Boeing are too great, and too much is at stake for Boeing. This is not a situation where a company can focus on its shareholders. The framework from Business Roundtable’s Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation seems particularly useful here as there are multiple interests at stake with Boeing. Shareholders are interested in a viable, ongoing, profitable corporation, but if Boeing takes the steps outlined in this piece, the profits will be forthcoming and substantive. There are Boeing’s customers, Boeing’s suppliers, Boeing’s employees, and those localities where Boeing has factories, partners, and third-party relationships.

Start with the customers of Boeing. While there are direct relationships with airline carriers, I argue that the customers of Boeing should extend to those of us in the flying public. Nearly 200 million Americans flew domestically in 2023, and probably 90% flew on a Boeing jet. What about suppliers and localities doing business with and for Boeing? In 2023, Boeing is estimated to have generated over $77bn in revenue for America alone. The employees of Boeing are the biggest group of supporters of the company and the most significant source of information about what is wrong with the company and how to fix it. Yet this is an entirely untapped resource for Boeing as it has become clear as whistleblower after whistleblower has come publicly forward after literally beating their heads internally trying to raise their hands and speak up.

A standard monitorship involves the appointment of an independent monitor who oversees the company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. This oversight ensures that the company adheres to the terms of its settlement and implements necessary reforms. The monitor acts as an impartial third party, reporting to the DOJ on the company’s progress and adherence to ethical standards.

But here, I have proposed a much bigger monitorship that Boeing should fully embrace. I have urged the DOJ to appoint an Omnibus Monitor to oversee multiple monitors in specific subject matter areas. This would be far too big for any law firm or consulting company. The Omnibus Monitor would be in charge of a wide variety of corporate disciplines that Boeing must get right out of the terrible corporate fix they find themselves in. What are some of the areas that should have their monitorship under an Omnibus Monitor? Safety is at the core, but so is culture, compliance, Speak Up and Listen Up, supply chain, fraud, export control, and sanctions. The DOJ needs to work with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to oversee all aircraft manufacturing issues to meet the FAA regulatory requirements.

One of the most significant benefits of this Omnibus Monitor approach would be restoring trust and credibility for Boeing. The 737 Max incidents have deeply tarnished Boeing’s reputation among regulators, the public, investors, and other stakeholders. Accepting this Omnibus Monitor would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability, demonstrating that Boeing is willing to undergo rigorous scrutiny to regain its standing.

Transparency is a cornerstone of trust. By allowing this Omnibus Monitor to evaluate and report on its practices, Boeing can show that it has nothing to hide and is dedicated to making genuine improvements. This openness can help rebuild confidence among customers, suppliers, and the aviation community.

As I noted, this Omnibus Monitor would have multiple monitors under it. A critical area where Boeing must improve is its internal culture. A monitor can play a pivotal role in this transformation of culture. The monitor can help Boeing develop a robust compliance program that prioritizes safety and ethical conduct by providing unbiased assessments and recommendations. An external perspective is invaluable in identifying blind spots and areas of resistance within the organization. Boeing has demonstrated that it cannot recognize and address deeply ingrained cultural issues. A monitor can provide the objectivity and expertise needed to drive meaningful change, ensuring safety and compliance are ingrained in every aspect of Boeing’s operations.

It is time for Boeing to step up and repair its relationships with regulators, from the FAA to the DOJ and all those regulatory bodies. Once again, Boeing has a terrible relationship with the regulators, and an Omnibus Monitor demonstrates a willingness to cooperate fully with the DOJ and other regulatory authorities. This goodwill can benefit the current settlement and any future interactions with regulators. By embracing this Omnibus Monitor approach, Boeing can show that it is taking its obligations seriously and is committed to rectifying past mistakes. This proactive approach can lead to more favorable settlement terms and potentially reduce the severity of any future penalties.

Implementing lasting reforms across the entire organization requires more than internal efforts; it requires sustained oversight and accountability. This Omnibus Monitor approach provides a structured framework for Boeing to follow, ensuring that reforms are implemented and maintained over time. The monitor’s periodic evaluations and reports create a continuous feedback loop, allowing Boeing to make necessary adjustments and improvements. This structured oversight will hopefully prevent the recurrence of past issues and promote a culture of constant improvement. It ensures that Boeing’s commitment to safety and compliance does not wane once the immediate scrutiny is lifted.

Shareholders and investors are all a part of this discussion as well. Investor confidence is crucial for any publicly traded company. The 737 Max crisis has shaken investor faith in Boeing. Embracing a monitorship can help reassure investors that Boeing is committed to addressing the root causes of its problems and is on a path to recovery. Investors seek stability and transparency. By accepting this Omnibus Monitor approach, Boeing can ensure that it is taking concrete steps to mitigate risks and enhance its governance practices. This reassurance can stabilize stock prices and restore investor confidence, which is essential for the company’s long-term financial health.

Boeing is not just any company; the US is the leader in the aerospace industry. It is one of the two biggest airplane manufacturers in the world. Its actions set precedents and influence industry standards literally on a worldwide basis. By willingly accepting this Omnibus Monitor approach, Boeing can set a positive example in the industry. Boeing can demonstrate that even the largest and most established companies are not above accountability and can benefit from external oversight. This leadership can have a ripple effect, encouraging other companies to prioritize safety, compliance, and ethical conduct. It can contribute to raising the overall standards of the aerospace industry, benefiting the entire ecosystem, including passengers, regulators, and competitors.

In conclusion, while the prospect of this Omnibus Monitor approach might initially appear daunting, it is, in fact, a powerful tool for Boeing to embrace. The benefits of restoring trust, enhancing compliance and safety culture, demonstrating good faith to regulators, facilitating lasting reforms, reassuring investors, and setting a positive industry example far outweigh the perceived burdens.

Boeing’s journey toward redemption and sustainable success hinges on its willingness to accept responsibility and make genuine improvements. By embracing this Omnibus Monitor approach as part of its settlement with the DOJ, Boeing can take a significant step forward in rebuilding its reputation and ensuring a safer, more ethical future for itself and the aerospace industry.

Embracing this oversight is not a sign of weakness but a testament to Boeing’s commitment to excellence and accountability. It is a strategic move that can pave the way for a brighter and more responsible future, reaffirming Boeing’s position as a leader in the aerospace industry.

Categories
2 Gurus Talk Compliance

2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 32 — Shout Out to CCI

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 of 2 Gurus Talk Compliance Podcast, hosts Kristy Grant-Hart and Tom Fox discuss major developments in the compliance world. The topics include the potential scope of Boeing’s monitorship related to the 737 MAX crashes, Italian raids on luxury brand manufacturers for modern slavery violations, insights from the year’s biggest risk assessment survey, and Florida man’s futile gun battle with a Walmart drone. Additionally, they delve into articles from Corporate Compliance Insights on well-being washing, Supreme Court’s rollback of Chevron deference, trade sanctions screening, effective use of AI in compliance, and the importance of regulating ephemeral messaging. The episode concludes with an entertaining Florida man story involving a shootout with a drone.

Stories Include:

  • To the DOJ: Go Big on Boeing. (CCI)
  •  Well-Being Washing (it’s a real thing). (CCI)
  •  Upgrading TPRM in the age of AI. (CCI)
  • Sanctioned or not? (CCI)
  • International Comms Compliance. (CCI)
  • Raids Find Luxury Handbags Being Made by Exploited Workers in Italy (WSJ)
  • Supreme Court Overrules Chevron, Sharply Limiting Judicial Deference To Agencies’ Statutory Interpretation (Gibson Dunn)
  • 2024 State of Risk & Compliance Report (NAVEX)
  • Is work taking over your life? Here’s how to reclaim your time. (WaPo)
  • A Florida man’s futile gun battle with a Walmart drone. (Fortune)

Resources:

Kristy Grant-Hart on LinkedIn

Spark Consulting

Prove Your Worth

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide – Step 6 – Clawbacks and Holdbacks

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo lay out the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a full 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 the importance of using clawbacks and holdbacks.

In episode six of the FCPA Survival Guide, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo delve into the relatively new DOJ enforcement strategies: clawbacks and holdbacks. They discuss how these financial disincentives, formalized in the 2023 Monaco memo, aim to promote corporate compliance. The conversation highlights practical examples from companies like SAP and Albemarle, which implemented these strategies and received substantial credits from the DOJ. Nick emphasizes the importance and effectiveness of financial disincentives in driving behavior change and maintaining corporate integrity. The episode explores how these methods can operationalize compliance at all organizational levels.

Key Highlights and Issues

  • Understanding Holdbacks and Clawbacks
  • DOJ’s Pilot Program and Case Studies
  • The Impact of Financial Incentives
  • Corporate Responsibility and Individual Accountability
  • Employee Awareness and Compliance Culture
  • Balancing Positive and Negative Incentives

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

Supreme Court Rulings: A Compliance Perspective

Recently, the Supreme Court delivered several rulings that have caught the attention of compliance professionals. This blog post will dissect these rulings and explore their implications for corporate compliance. Matt Kelly and I took a deep dive into this week’s Compliance into the Weeds to see if you prefer the audio format.

  1. Jarkesy Decision: SEC and In-House Tribunals

The Jarkesy decision ruled that the SEC cannot use in-house tribunals for enforcement proceedings, mandating that cases be brought to federal court. This ruling is likely to have a minor impact from a compliance perspective. Here’s why:

Federal Court Preference: For severe charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the SEC has historically opted to bring cases to U.S. district courts. These cases typically involve criminal charges, and the SEC has not utilized in-house tribunals for FCPA enforcement in over a decade.

Corporate vs. Individual Defendants: The ruling primarily benefits defendants who can now have their cases heard in federal court instead of administrative tribunals. However, for corporate compliance officers, this distinction is largely irrelevant. Corporate cases are typically resolved in federal courts through settlements without the need for protracted legal battles.

  1. Loper Case: Overturning the Chevron Doctrine

The Loper case overturned the Chevron doctrine and is another landmark decision. The Chevron doctrine allowed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Here’s what this means for compliance:

Guidelines vs. Rules: Compliance officers should understand that DOJ guidelines for effective compliance programs are just guidelines, not rules. These guidelines are not subject to Chevron’s deference and are regularly updated to reflect best practices.

Practical Impact: Eliminating Chevron’s deference might make it more challenging for agencies to introduce new rules without facing legal challenges. However, this does not directly impact existing guidelines or enforcement practices related to corporate compliance.

Increased Litigation Risk: Future regulations may face more scrutiny and litigation, potentially leading to increased enforcement of existing rules rather than creating new ones. Compliance professionals should prepare for more rigorous enforcement actions based on current regulations.

  1. Snyder Decision: Federal Anti-Corruption Law

The Snyder decision narrowed the scope of federal anti-corruption law, particularly concerning bribes paid to state and local officials. This ruling has some interesting implications:

Case Background: The case involved the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who awarded a contract to a specific company and later received a $13,000 consulting fee as a reward. The Supreme Court ruled this as a gratuity rather than a bribe, complicating enforcement under federal anti-corruption laws.

Corporate Compliance Concerns: While this ruling applies to state and local officials, compliance officers must remain vigilant about maintaining clear anti-corruption policies. The ruling doesn’t directly affect the FCPA, which targets foreign officials, but highlights the importance of robust internal controls and transparent record-keeping.

Ethical Implications: Compliance programs should continue emphasizing ethical behavior and avoiding corruption, whether labeled as a gratuity or a bribe. The moral imperative against corruption remains unchanged despite legal nuances.

The recent Supreme Court decisions may not drastically alter corporate compliance programs’ day-to-day operations, but they highlight the evolving legal landscape that compliance professionals must navigate. Here are some key takeaways:

  1. Stay Informed: Regularly update your knowledge of legal developments and understand their potential impact on your compliance program.
  2. Focus on Ethics: Reinforce the ethical foundation of your compliance efforts. Emphasize that any corrupt behavior, whether technically legal or not, is unacceptable.
  3. Prepare for Increased Scrutiny: With the potential for more litigation around new regulations, ensure your compliance program is robust and well-documented. Be ready to demonstrate your commitment to ethical practices and effective compliance.
  4. Engage with Legal Experts: Work closely with legal counsel to interpret these rulings and adjust your compliance strategies accordingly. Legal guidance is crucial in navigating complex regulatory changes.

In conclusion, while the Jarkesy, Loper, and Snyder decisions may seem weighty, their direct impact on corporate compliance programs is limited. However, they serve as a reminder of the dynamic nature of compliance and the need for ongoing vigilance and adaptability. By focusing on ethical behavior and maintaining strong internal controls, compliance professionals can continue to safeguard their organizations against legal and reputational risks.

Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: July 10, 2024 The Bars of Gold 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:

  • In closing, Menendez lawyers say bars of gold are not evidence of bribery. (Reuters)
  • The U.S. plans to conduct a broader analysis of real estate deals near military bases. (WSJ)
  • It’s all about culture—PE destroys another start-up.  (NYT)
  • DOJ targets white collar crime via whistleblowers. (WaPo)

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

Categories
Blog

To the DOJ: Think Big and Go Big on the Boeing Monitorship

Perhaps the most significant blog post in the compliance arena was penned by Matt Ellis over 10 years ago when he challenged Walmart to “Go Big” on compliance. (They did.) We are now at another inflection point in compliance but in a very different set of circumstances from Walmart’s breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It involves the Department of Justice  (DOJ) and its decision on what to do about Boeing Company under the current Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) from the 737 MAX crashes. Today I want to challenge the DOJ to Think Big and Go Big in its approach to dealing with Boeing going forward.

The issue the DOJ is grappling with is whether and how to get Boeing to fix the festering set of problems which led to the 737 MAX disasters and cultural toxicity have continued unabated since the DPA was agreed to by Boeing back in 2021. In May of this year, the DOJ notified Boeing that it was in breach of this DPA for failing “to design, implement, and enforce a compliance and ethics program to prevent and detect violations of the U.S. fraud laws throughout its operations.” Now the DOJ is determining the steps to take.

The families of the victims of the 737 MAX crashes have been the loudest about the need to punish Boeing executives with criminal charges. They met with the DOJ and asked about criminal charges and a massive penalty. Now the DOJ has responded. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), “Under the guilty-plea agreement outlined Sunday to families of the crash victims, Boeing would have to agree to hire an outside consultant to monitor its compliance with safety regulations. It also would pay an additional corporate penalty of about $243 million.”

It is the ‘outside consultant’ where the DOJ needs to ‘Go Big.’ How? By creating the most comprehensive monitoring plan ever used. Why? Because there has never been a corporate case more important to the United States than getting Boeing back on track. This is not a FCPA case where a company has admitted to bribery and corruption, even across the globe. This is not 2008 when banks were ‘too big to fail’. This is something completely different. This is the only major US aircraft manufacturer and one of the two biggest in the world. This is a company that provides products for nearly half of all American as Airlines for Americaestimates that 49% of all Americans flew commercially in 2023. Boeing is estimated to have generated over $77bn in revenue for America alone in 2023.

But Boeing’s importance to America is not simply about economics. Boeing is a key component in US 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 a part of the Internal Space Station (ISS), orbital test vehicles and deep space exploration.

In short, there is probably no other single institution as important to the US in manufacturing as Boeing. Nearly 200 million American who fly in Boeing planes are depending on Boeing to get it right. The US (and world) economy need the drive that Boeing provides. The US national security depends on a well-functioning Boeing to lead the technological drive to protect the US for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. Boeing needs to continue its work for our drive as humans into what Gene Roddenberry called ‘space – the final frontier’ as one of the leading companies on space exploration. Finally, and certainly 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.

Most importantly, we all have an interest in Boeing getting its remediation right. Boeing must turn around from a culture where employees are afraid to step forward, there is acceptable slipshod work and work practices, where employees who do report problems are actively harassed, where employees lie and mislead federal regulators over basic safety issues and where the almighty dollar is put so far above safety that literally hundreds of lives are lost. All of this means a monitorship where there are multiple areas monitored, overseen and thoroughly remediated so that they pass the strongest form of testing and controls at the end of a lengthy period (at least 3 years). The Court also needs to stay actively involved in the monitorship, not simply reviewing annual or even greater reporting but testing any claims by Boeing through rigorous data analytics. Boeing has clearly demonstrated it is not capable of turning itself around and a new and daring approach is needed for the company.

I believe the DOJ should appoint an Omnibus Monitor who would oversee multiple monitors in specific subject matter areas. This would be far too big for any one law firm or a single consulting company. The Omnibus Monitor would be in charge of a wide variety of corporate disciplines that Boeing must get right to get out of the terrible corporate fix they find themselves in. What are some of the areas that should have their own monitorship under an Omnibus Monitor? Obviously, safety is at the core but also culture, compliance, Speak Up and Listen Up, Supply Chain, fraud, Export Control, Sanctions. On the overall aircraft manufacturing issues, the DOJ needs to work with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to oversee all of this to meet the FAA regulatory requirements.

This would be by far the biggest monitorship ever because it is by far the most important monitorship ever. Just as Ellis challenged Walmart to ‘go big’ on compliance, I want the DOJ to Think Big and Go Big with an Omnibus Monitor for Boeing. Literally all of America and the world is depending on it.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide: Step 5 – Data Analytics

How can you survive an FCPA enforcement action? In this special podcast series, Tom Fox and Nick Gallo lay out the Top 10 things you can do to reduce your overall fine and penalty, perhaps down to a full 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 the importance of data analytics as a key part of any remediation and in today’s compliance regimes.

Tom Fox and Nick Gallo are back to discuss the evolving role of data analytics in compliance, highlighting its transition from a cutting-edge tool to a best practice and soon-to-be table-stakes requirement. They review the SAP and Albemarle FCPA  enforcement actions to illustrate points where data analytics played a pivotal role in remediation efforts. They look at the foundational aspects of data analytics, paralleling personal finance management to underline its fundamental importance in both personal and professional contexts. Some of the key uses of data analytics are risk identification, response, compliance program testing, and reporting, as outlined by Andrew McBride, a recently retired chief ethics and compliance officer. They conclude by stressing the importance of data analytics in demonstrating program effectiveness and underscore the DOJ’s interest in data-driven evidence of compliance program remediation.

Key Highlights and Issues

  • The Evolution and Importance of Data Analytics
  • Understanding Data Analytics Through Everyday Examples
  • Practical Approaches to Implementing Data Analytics
  • The Role of Data Analytics in Compliance Program Testing and Reporting
  • Personalizing Data Analytics for Program Effectiveness

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
Compliance Into the Weeds

Compliance into the Weeds: Navigating DOJ’s Boeing Dilemma Under DPA Violations

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 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 complexities surrounding the Department of Justice’s potential decision to criminally prosecute Boeing under its Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) related to the 737 MAX crashes.

They explore the various facets of corporate justice, including retribution, remediation, and societal interests, as well as the challenges in balancing justice for the victims and the broader implications for public safety and corporate culture.

The discussion also covers the FAA’s role, the potential for new operational limits on Boeing, the impact and structure of compliance monitorships, and what compliance officers can learn from this high-stakes scenario.

Key Highlights:

  • DOJ and Boeing: The 737 MAX Dilemma
  • Corporate Justice: Individuals vs. Corporations
  • Balancing Justice and Corporate Interests
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Compliance Challenges
  • Financial Penalties vs. Operational Limits
  • The Potential of Monitorships
  • FAA’s Role and Challenges
  • Compliance Lessons and Future Considerations

Resources:

Matt on Radical Compliance

 Tom 

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Categories
Blog

The DOJ Boeing Conundrum

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently in a conundrum over its Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) for the Boeing 737 Max crashes. Understanding the implications of the DOJ’s upcoming decision on whether to prosecute Boeing under the existing criminal law is crucial. This decision carries significant weight and presents a multifaceted challenge for Boeing and the broader corporate compliance and governance landscape.

The criminal justice system’s fundamental purpose encompasses several key aspects: retribution, justice for victims, and the rehabilitation of offenders. While straightforward when applied to individuals, these principles become more complex in the context of corporate entities. For the families of the 346 victims of the 737 Max crashes, justice might mean seeing Boeing held criminally accountable, literally with senior executives or even Board members facing criminal charges. This desire for justice is understandable and necessary for those who have suffered immeasurable loss.

However, the broader societal interest in maintaining a safe and reliable aviation industry adds complexity. Ensuring that Boeing undergoes a cultural shift towards prioritizing safety over profit is crucial to preventing future tragedies. This balance between justice for the families of the crash victims and ongoing public safety is at the heart of the DOJ’s dilemma.

At the core of this issue is Boeing’s corporate culture. The company’s aggressive pursuit of profit and rapid production schedules has led to significant safety oversights. Incidents such as the recent mid-flight door detachment from a Boeing airliner and allegations of using falsified or contaminated titanium underscore ongoing safety concerns. Addressing these issues necessitates a fundamental shift in Boeing’s approach to safety and governance.

Compliance officers face the daunting task of ensuring that DPAs are effectively implemented. Boeing’s situation raises critical questions about the enforcement of DPAs, the criteria for determining violations, and the appropriate remedies when violations occur. The rarity of formal DPA violations adds to the uncertainty and complexity.

The DOJ’s decision on Boeing involves balancing multiple interests: the victims’ families, Boeing’s employees, the air-traveling public, and the broader economic and national economic and national security implications of Boeing’s operations. As the “People’s Law Firm,” the DOJ must navigate these diverse and often conflicting interests to reach a peaceful resolution.

A key consideration is whether financial penalties alone can drive meaningful corporate reform. Historical evidence suggests that financial penalties, while necessary, may not suffice to instill lasting cultural change. More stringent measures, such as operational limits and enhanced monitoring, may be required.

The concept of a monitorship is particularly relevant. A monitor could provide ongoing oversight and guidance, ensuring Boeing meets stringent compliance standards. Transparency in monitoring, including public disclosure of monitor reports, could enhance accountability and public trust.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also plays a crucial role. However, the FAA’s past performance overseeing Boeing raises questions about its ability to enforce safety standards effectively. Ensuring that the FAA undergoes its cultural transformation and maintains rigorous oversight is essential for any comprehensive solution.

Boeing’s status as a major aircraft manufacturer has significant implications for national security and the economy, which makes its case unique. Compliance professionals in other industries must recognize that the consequences of non-compliance can vary significantly based on a company’s strategic importance. While some companies might face severe penalties or even closure, critical industries like aviation may require more nuanced solutions to balance justice and operational continuity.

Compliance officers should closely monitor the DOJ’s handling of Boeing’s DPA. The potential introduction of CEO and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) certifications for compliance program effectiveness in future DPAs is a significant development. These certifications could greatly impact how compliance programs are designed and evaluated, making it crucial for compliance officers to stay informed and prepared.

The Boeing case underscores the complexities of enforcing corporate compliance in industries with significant public safety implications. The DOJ’s decision will likely set important precedents for future DPAs and compliance practices. As we await the DOJ’s final decision, it’s clear that achieving justice and ensuring safety requires a multifaceted approach, balancing financial penalties, operational oversight, and cultural transformation.

For compliance professionals, the key takeaway from this case is the importance of robust compliance programs and the necessity of adapting to new regulatory expectations. The introduction of CCO certifications, the potential for increased transparency in monitorships, and the evolving nature of DPA enforcement are all critical factors to consider in developing and maintaining effective compliance strategies. Compliance officers must remain vigilant and adaptable, drawing lessons from high-profile cases like Boeing’s to enhance compliance programs and contribute to a safer and more accountable corporate landscape.

Categories
FCPA Survival Guide

FCPA Survival Guide: Step 4 – Root Cause Analysis

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 the DOJ requirement that your remediation begins with a root cause analysis.

In this episode, host Tom Fox and co-host Nick Gallo discuss the importance of conducting a root cause analysis in compliance programs, particularly in light of the recent FCPA enforcement actions highlighting its significance. They use SAP’s approach to root cause analysis as a prime example of effectively identifying and remedying the underlying causes of compliance failures rather than merely addressing symptoms. They relate the human tendency to stop at superficial answers and the importance of discipline in continually asking ‘why’ to uncover true or ‘root’ causes. This approach satisfies regulatory expectations and builds a robust compliance program to prevent future violations. They underline the importance of storytelling in compliance, framing the root cause analysis and subsequent remediation efforts in a narrative that resonates with internal and external audiences, including regulators.

Key Highlights and Issues:

  • The Importance of Root Cause Analysis in Compliance
  • Human Nature and the Challenge of Deep Analysis
  • DOJ’s Expectations
  • The Art of Storytelling in Compliance

 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