Tag: ECCP

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – The ECCP: Part 4 – Final Thoughts

In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we will conclude our multi-part review of this document by some of the other key changes and additions to the document and what it all means for the compliance professional going forward.

 Use of Monitors

In the introduction its states, “Moreover, Criminal Division policies on monitor selection instruct prosecutors to consider, at the time of the resolution, whether the corporation has made significant investments in, and improvements to, its corporate compliance program and internal controls systems and whether remedial improvements to the compliance program and internal controls have been tested to demonstrate that they would prevent or detect similar misconduct in the future to determine whether a monitor is appropriate.” This language is a firm reject of the Benzkowski Memo and the prior administration’s reticence to employ monitorships as a tool to ensure compliance with not only the settlement documents but also the creation and implementation of a compliance program.

Internal Compliance Controls

Under Section II, entitled “Is the Corporation’s Compliance Program Adequately Resourced and Empowered to Function Effectively?”, is the new language, “In this regard, prosecutors should evaluate a corporation’s method for assessing and addressing applicable risks and designing appropriate controls to manage these risks.” This simple sentence packs quite a wallop as it mandates a risk assessment, design and implementation of appropriate internal compliance controls and then monitoring of those controls to see if they are managing the risks identified in the risk assessment. Many of these concepts are fleshed out in the ECCP but it is clear this is a minimum expectation from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Adequate Compensation and Salary/Bonus Review for Compliance

Under Section III, “Does Your Compliance Program Work in Practice”, is the following new language: “Independence and Empowerment – Is compensation for employees who are responsible for investigating and adjudicating misconduct structured in a way that ensures the compliance team is empowered to enforce the policies and ethical values of the company? Who determines the compensation, including bonuses, as well as discipline and promotion of compliance personnel or others within the organization that have a role in the disciplinary process generally?”

This is a significant new addition to the ECCP. It forces a company to adequately compensate those employees who investigate and pass judgment on misconduct. But it is more than simply adequate compensation as it also requires a company not to retaliate via low salaries or limited raises or other compensation for doing their jobs as compliance officers. In other words, if the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is being investigated by compliance; that same CEO should not be setting or reviewing the salary of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or those doing the investigation. This mandates that the DOJ will review the entire corporate organization on these issues.

Final Thoughts

This brings us to the end of a series of momentous announcements by the DOJ. While we have not discussed the changes in monitor selection announced by Polite as it largely deals with internal DOJ process, we would note that it will require a more lengthy and rigorous request process for those prosecutors’ seeking monitors, as well as a review process up to perhaps even the DAG. This alone could lengthen out an entire Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action.

The incentives language, both financial and non-financial, will require a much deeper analysis by a corporate compliance program in the areas of compensation, as well as promotion, than has even been mandated. The first thing I would do as a CCO is go down the hall to speak with the head of Human Resources (HR) to get an understanding of how compensation is based and what factors of doing business ethically and in compliance are reviewed for both salary and discretionary bonus amounts. The same would hold true for promotion into both middle and senior management. All of these will need to have metrics or other auditable frameworks around them so they can be reviewed, tested and data presented to the regulators if they come knocking.

The language around messaging apps needs to be taken to heart by not simply the compliance function but all senior level executives. While the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has garnered the most publicity for its fines levied on regulated industries, the new language of the ECCP makes clear the DOJ is equally concerned about this issue. Woe be it to any company which finds itself in a FCPA investigation or enforcement action where said company does not meet these DOJ requirements. The DOJ will most probably assume a willful failure to meet the strictures of the 2023 ECCP.

Obviously, the Biden Administration DOJ is stepping away from some of the initiatives of the Trump Administration DOJ. However, in other areas this DOJ is building on some of the steps of the prior administration. It is clear the DOJ is continuing to evolve in its thinking about what constitutes a best practices compliance program and will continue to do so. Compliance professionals will need to study these new initiatives and implement their requirements.

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – The ECCP: Part 3 – Messaging Apps

In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we review another new addition to the ECCP, dealing with messaging apps.

There is not much which seems to excise the regulators in the compliance space as much as messaging apps. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has brought multiple and very large enforcement actions against regulated industries around their allowing employees to use messaging apps with no corporate oversight. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been talking about messaging apps for over two years and now incorporated its guidance into the ECCP.

The ECCP opened this section by noting, “Messaging applications have become ubiquitous in many markets and offer important platforms for companies to achieve growth and facilitate communication.” For any company under investigation or in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action, the DOJ will evaluate its “policies and mechanisms for identifying, reporting, investigating, and remediating potential misconduct and violations of law…governing the use of personal devices, communications platforms, and messaging applications, including ephemeral messaging applications.” Off the shelf policies will not be sufficient as the company’s management of messaging apps “should be tailored to the corporation’s risk profile and specific business needs.” Not surprisingly the DOJ is also concerned about storage, access and even backups, requiring that “business-related electronic data and communications are accessible and amenable to preservation by the company.” Training and communication of these policies and procedures will also be evaluated and “whether the corporation has enforced the policies and procedures on a regular and consistent basis in practice.”

The Messaging Apps

Under the section entitled “Communication Channels”, the DOJ poses a series of questions that every compliance program must answer. These questions include:

  • What electronic communication channels does the company and its employees use, or allow to be used, to conduct business?
  • How does that practice vary by jurisdiction and business function, and why?
  • What mechanisms has the company put in place to manage and preserve information contained within each of the electronic communication channels?
  • What preservation or deletion settings are available to each employee under each communication channel, and what do the company’s policies require with respect to each?
  • What is the rationale for the company’s approach to determining which communication channels and settings are permitted?

Under this section, compliance must delineate which messaging apps a company uses and why. Is it consistent or does it vary country by country? What mechanism has your organization put in place to manage this risk? Finally, how are the communications preserved and what is your rationale for your system?

Policies and Procedures

Under the section entitled “Policy Environment”, the DOJ poses a series of questions that every compliance program must answer. These questions include:

  • What policies and procedures are in place to ensure that communications and other data is preserved from devices that are replaced?
  • What are the relevant code of conduct, privacy, security, and employment laws or policies that govern the organization’s ability to ensure security or monitor/access business-related communications?
  • If the company has a “bring your own device” (BYOD) program, what are its policies governing preservation of and access to corporate data and communications stored on personal devices—including data contained within messaging platforms—and what is the rationale behind those policies?
  • How have the company’s data retention and business conduct policies been applied and enforced with respect to personal devices and messaging applications?
  • Do the organization’s policies permit the company to review business communications on BYOD and/or messaging applications?
  • What exceptions or limitations to these policies have been permitted by the organization? If the company has a policy regarding whether employees should transfer messages, data, and information from private phones or messaging applications onto company record-keeping systems in order to preserve and retain them, is it being followed in practice, and how is it enforced?

This section presents several areas a compliance professional should look into for their program. Do you have an appropriate set of policies and procedures in place and are they the same for company issued phones and BYOD phones? If not, why not. Do you have a data retention policy in place for messaging apps and their platforms and is it applied consistently (if at all)? Does your organization review business communications through messaging apps or does your organization even have the right to do so? Finally, are messages preserved somewhere?

Under the section entitled “Risk Management”, the DOJ poses a series of questions that every compliance program must answer. These questions include:

  • What are the consequences for employees who refuse the company access to company communications? Has the company ever exercised these rights?
  • Has the company disciplined employees who fail to comply with the policy or the requirement that they give the company access to these communications? Has the use of personal devices or messaging applications—including ephemeral messaging applications—impaired in any way the organization’s compliance program or its ability to conduct internal investigations or respond to requests from prosecutors or civil enforcement or regulatory agencies?
  • How does the organization manage security and exercise control over the communication channels used to conduct the organization’s affairs?
  • Is the organization’s approach to permitting and managing communication channels, including BYOD and messaging applications, reasonable in the context of the company’s business needs and risk profile?

This  final section might as well have been named ‘consequence management’ but I guess that moniker was already taken. Here the DOJ wants to know what consequences recalcitrant  employees faced for failure to follow the appropriate  policies and procedures.  Moreover, did any employee actions around messaging apps hinder or block internal investigations or regulators queries or attendant responses?  Next, is an appropriate level of internal security being exercised for such communications? Finally, are the company’s action reasonable in the context of its business needs and risk management protocol?

Obviously, there is quite a bit in these three sections every compliance professional will have to consider. But the framework already exists which you can adapt. It is risk assessmentrisk management strategyongoing monitoringongoing improvement. It may take some work but your blueprint to handle these requirements exists.

Join us tomorrow when we conclude our review of the 2023 ECCP.

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – The ECCP: Part 2 – Consequence Management

In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we review another new addition to the ECCP, that being ‘consequence management’. This certainly includes clawbacks but there is also other language which compliance professionals will need to incorporate into their compliance program beyond clawbacks.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been talking about clawbacks for some time now. However, the revised language of the ECCP puts more rigor around what the DOJ is now mandating. This section begins by noting that financial penalties as well as financial incentives can influence employee behavior and that prosecutors are now required to consider both aspects. It states:

“By way of example, prosecutors may consider whether a company has publicized disciplinary actions internally, where appropriate and possible, which can have valuable deterrent effects. Prosecutors may also consider whether a company is tracking data relating to disciplinary actions to measure effectiveness of the investigation and consequence management functions. This can include monitoring the number of compliance-related allegations that are substantiated, the average (and outlier) times to complete a compliance investigation, and the effectiveness and consistency of disciplinary measures across the levels, geographies, units or departments of an organization…Some companies have also enforced contract provisions that permit the company to recoup previously awarded compensation if the recipient of such compensation is found to have engaged in or to be otherwise responsible for corporate wrongdoing. Finally, prosecutors may consider whether provisions for recoupment or reduction of compensation due to compliance violations or misconduct are maintained and enforced in accordance with company policy and applicable laws…Compensation structures that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

Clawbacks

With the Pilot Program and other announcements in the Monaco and Polite speeches, the DOJ has made clear that companies need to seek to recover amounts paid out to executives which were illegally received as corporate compensation. This could include both salary, stock options or similar payments or discretionary bonuses. Regarding your corporate clawback protocol itself, the ECCP poses the following questions:

  • What percentage of executive compensation is structured to encourage enduring ethical business objectives?
  • Are the terms of bonus and deferred compensation subject to cancellation or recoupment, to the extent available under applicable law, in the event that non-compliant or unethical behavior is exposed before or after the award was issued?
  • Does the company have a policy for recouping compensation that has been paid, where there has been misconduct?
  • Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied, compensation recouped or deferred compensation cancelled) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?

All of this means every compliance program will need to analyze each of these components as set out. It will also require a review of executive contracts to determine if there are clawback provisions set out in each employment contract. If there are no such provisions, they will need to be inserted. Finally, what “specific examples of actions taken” does a company have to show to the DOJ should they come knocking?

Consequence Management

The DOJ also mandated that compliance programs take a deeper dive into their entire financial incentive program; both incentives and dis-incentives. While not previously discussed in speeches, these new requirements seem to flow from the general statements made by both Monaco and Polite over the past year. In this area, the ECCP mandates the following inquiries:

  • How has the company ensured effective consequence management of compliance violations in practice?
  • What insights can be taken from the management of a company’s hotline that provide indicia of its compliance culture or its management of hotline reports?
  • How do the substantiation rates compare for similar types of reported wrongdoing across the company (i.e. between two or more different states, countries, or departments) or compared to similarly situated companies, if known?
  • Has the company undertaken a root cause analysis into areas where certain conduct is comparatively over or under reported?
  • What is the average time for completion of investigations into hotline reports and how are investigations that are addressed inconsistently managed by the responsible department?
  • What percentage of the compensation awarded to executives who have been found to have engaged in wrongdoing has been subject to cancellation or recoupment for ethical violations?
  • Taking into account the relevant laws and local circumstances governing the relevant parts of a compensation scheme, how has the organization sought to enforce breaches of compliance or penalize ethical lapses?
  • How much compensation has in fact been impacted (either positively or negatively) on account of compliance-related activities?

Obviously, there is some overlap with the clawback language but there is quite a bit new in these questions. The DOJ ties hotline and speak up reports directly to a company’s culture of compliance. This is almost a direct tie back to the findings of Kyle Welch in his seminal work on a speak up culture. But the DOJ goes on to ask about substantiation rates, closure rates, consistent and fair application of discipline (and rewards when called for) and root cause analysis; which are not simply technical aspects of compliance programs but are concrete steps companies can implement to engender trust with employees that their concerns will be taken seriously and then acted upon when they are raised. Once again, as with clawbacks, these are levels of analysis that many compliance programs have not yet taken but are now required to do so.

Join us tomorrow when we consider messaging apps under the revised ECCP.

Categories
Blog

The Week That Was in Compliance – The ECCP: Part 1 – Incentives

In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we will begin a multi-part review of this document by considering financial incentives.

This section begins with a new introduction which makes clear the seriousness in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) views incentives, both financial and other types of incentives. The ECCP states, “The design and implementation of compensation schemes play an important role in fostering a compliance culture. Prosecutors may consider whether a company has incentivized compliance by designing compensation systems that defer or escrow certain compensation tied to conduct consistent with company values and policies. Some companies have also enforced contract provisions that permit the company to recoup previously awarded compensation if the recipient of such compensation is found to have engaged in or to be otherwise responsible for corporate wrongdoing. Finally, prosecutors may consider whether provisions for recoupment or reduction of compensation due to compliance violations or misconduct are maintained and enforced in accordance with company policy and applicable laws. Compensation structures that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

However, the DOJ reiterated that “providing positive incentives, such as promotions, rewards, and bonuses for improving and developing a compliance program or demonstrating ethical leadership, can drive compliance. Prosecutors should examine whether a company has made working on compliance a means of career advancement, offered opportunities for managers and employees to serve as a compliance “champion”, or made compliance a significant metric for management bonuses. In evaluating whether the compensation and consequence management schemes are indicative of a positive compliance culture.”

Neither of these concepts for incentives are new. Financial incentives were a part of the original 10 Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as delineated in the 2012 edition of the FCPA Resource Guide. It was brought forward in the 2020 2nd edition. Promotions, rewards and bonuses were also discussed in both of those documents as well as other DOJ pronouncements and formulations over the years. However, this is the first time the DOJ has specifically spelled out the role of the ‘compliance champion’ as both an indicia of a best practices compliance program as well as a mechanism to demonstrate a ‘positive compliance culture.’

The ECCP also added a new section on financial incentives which directs prosecutors to specifically evaluate how a company designs and applies financial incentives. It states:

Incentive System – Has the company considered the implications of its incentives and rewards on compliance? How does the company incentivize compliance and ethical behavior? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied) as a result of compliance and ethicsconsiderations? Who determines the compensation, including bonuses, as well as discipline and promotion of compliance personnel?

Rephrasing these questions, a compliance professional might consider them in the following manner:

  1. How does the company incentivize compliance and ethical behavior?
  2. Has the company considered the implications of its incentives and rewards on compliance?
  3. Who determines the compensation, including bonuses, as well as discipline and promotion of compliance personnel?
  4. Have there been specific examples of actions taken (g., promotions or awards denied) as a result ofcompliance and ethics considerations?

These four questions basically breakdown into the following continuum: (1) Assessment, (2) Analysis, (3) Implementation; and (4) Monitoring.

Incentive program assessment. Here you need to review your corporate incentive program for all employees, most particularly the discretionary bonus program but also your non-financial incentives such as promotion. Is your bonus program only related to individual sales, division sales or other similar metric or overall company performance? You can begin with some questions suggested by the ECCP: What role does the compliance function have in designing and awarding financial incentives at senior levels of the organization? Has the company evaluated whether commercial targets are achievable if the business operates within a compliant and ethical manner?

If you do not have any component for doing business ethically and in compliance, your entire compliance program is probably falling short at this point. You should also see if this is a query for promotion and not simply does an employee.

Incentive program analysis. Here you need to see what perverse incentives may exist in your organization. Obviously if meeting your target numbers is the sole criteria, your program is once again falling short. On the promotion front, you need to analyze patterns of promotion to (1) see if any employees with ethical or compliance program violations have been promoted; and (2) also determine if employees are promoted simply for NOT have any ethical violations. This would lead to a review of whether or not promoted employees have been actively participated in improving or maintaining a culture of compliance. How does the company incentivize compliance and ethical behavior? What percentage of executive compensation is structured to encourage enduring ethical business objectives?

Incentive program implementation. After implementation of the incentive program, it must be monitored. The ECCP suggests an inquiry into the following area: Has the company considered the impact of its financial rewards and other incentives on compliance? Additionally, what role, if any, did the corporate compliance function have in advising on the bonus program or participating in setting the bonus and promotion structures?

Incentive program monitoring. Here there needs to be ongoing monitoring of the incentive program, including has the company ensured effective management of the incentive program? The ECCP suggests a review of how much compensation has in fact been impacted (either positively or negatively) on account of compliance-related activities?

Join me tomorrow where I take a deep dive into discipline or the new formulation, “consequence management.”

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

One Month to More Effective Compliance for Business Ventures – Post Acquisition Integration

Your company has just made its largest acquisition ever and your CEO says that he wants you to have a compliance post-acquisition integration plan on his desk in one week. Where do you begin? Of course, you think about the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition but you also remember that the established time frames in the enforcement actions involving Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Pfizer Inc. and DS&S and the Halliburton Opinion Release.

While there are time frames listed in these DPAs, they are a guide of timeframes, not a ‘how to’ guide and many compliance professionals struggle with how to perform these post-acquisition compliance integrations. The 2020 Update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs asked the following questions, What has been the company’s process for tracking and remediating misconduct or misconduct risks identified during the due diligence process? What has been the company’s process for implementing compliance policies and procedures, and conducting post- acquisition audits, at newly acquired entities?
Whatever compendium of steps you utilize for post-acquisition integration, they should be taken as soon as practicable.
Three key takeaways: 

  1. Planning is critical in the post-acquisition phase.
  2. Build upon what you learned in pre-acquisition due diligence.
  3. You need to be ready to hit the ground running when a transaction closes.