Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action, involving the waste management company, Stericycle, Inc. (Stericycle). According to the Information and Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), Stericycle entered into a three-year DPA. The company was charged with two counts of conspiracy to violate (1) the anti-bribery provision of the FCPA, and (2) the FCPA’s books and records provision. Under the DPA, Stericycle agreed to a criminal penalty of $52.5 million of which the DOJ agreed to credit up to one-third of the criminal penalty against fines the company pays to authorities in Brazil in related proceedings. According to the SEC Cease and Desist Order (Order), Stericycle violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA and agreed to pay approximately $28.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The SEC Order also provided for an offset of up to approximately $4.2 million of any disgorgement paid to Brazilian authorities. Today we consider the lessons learned.
Rapid Expansion
Similar to what we saw in the WPP enforcement action, Stericycle engaged in rapid expansion in a series of foreign jurisdiction. In this case it was Latin America. Stericycle does not seem to have made the same mistakes as WPP in holding back part of the overall acquisition payout to the owners in the locales where they purchased entities and thereby incentivizing corruption to meet sales goals. Under Stericycle, there was nothing about this same type of incentive plan used by WPP. However, Stericycle did appear to keep the former owners on as the executives in these new foreign subsidiaries without taking into account how those former owners may have done business or the risk model it entailed.
Which brings us to pre-acquisition due diligence, which is not simply looking at the financial issues involved but also considering the potential purchase from the compliance perspective. How did the companies which were purchased to form the foreign subsidiaries in Latin America do business before they were purchased? Did Stericycle review those companies from the compliance standpoint?
Moreover, and as Candice Tal, founder of Infortal, continually reminds us, due diligence is more than simply a site investigation or a couple of interviews. It should include “an in-depth background check of key executives or principal players. These are not routine employment-type background checks, which are simply designed to confirm existing information; but rather executive due diligence checks designed to investigate hidden, secret or undisclosed information about that individual.” Tal believes that such “Reputational information, involvement in other businesses, direct or indirect involvement in other lawsuits, history of litigious and other lifestyle behaviors which can adversely affect your business, and public perceptions of impropriety, should they be disclosed publicly.” Clearly, Stericycle did not engage in this level of due diligence in either the acquisitions of the entities which became Stericycle subsidiaries in Latin America, nor in their key personnel. Employees up and down the chain of an organization do not simply wake up one day and decide to engage in bribery and corruption and create a full set of records so the effectiveness of your bribery-based business process can be evaluated.
Impact of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy
The Stericycle enforcement action once again demonstrates how the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy can benefit even the most corrupt organization and allow a significant reduction of the overall fine and penalty under the US Sentencing Guidelines. According to the DPA, Stericycle received a 25% discount off the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines fine range for its cooperation during the pendency of the investigation and the extensive remediation.
I have previously estimated Stericycle saved between $25 million to $30 million from their final criminal fine. That is certainly a significant amount and one every Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) needs to have ready to submit to your CEO to demonstrate the power of committing time and resources to both internal investigations and remediation during the pendency of the investigation.
Impact from the Lisa Monaco Doctrine
a. The Monitor
The is first FCPA enforcement action to show the full impact of the change in DOJ enforcement priorities after the Lisa Monaco speech of October 2021, in a variety of ways. The first is the imposition of a monitor. It was required under both the DPA and the Order. Interestingly, even though the company was long aware of its compliance and ethical failures and even though it had been investigating this matter since at least 2016; the company could not seem to get its collective act together enough to fully implement and test the new compliance regime set out in the DPA. The DPA stated, “despite its extensive remedial measures described above, the Company to date has not fully implemented or tested its enhanced compliance program, and thus the imposition of an independent compliance monitor for a term of two years, as described more fully below and in Attachment D, is necessary to prevent the recurrence of misconduct.” [Emphasis supplied] Clearly the DOJ (and SEC) did not trust that the company would follow through with its resolution documents obligations and was “necessary to prevent the recurrence of misconduct.”
b. Culture
One part of the Monaco speech which drew much criticism from the White-Collar defense bar and others were her remarks around culture and that the DOJ would start assessing corporate culture in the context of other fines, penalties and regulatory enforcement actions from outside the FCPA context. Many articulated fears that conduct completely unrelated to a FCPA enforcement action could form the basis of a FCPA enforcement action. Those fears were alleviated in the Stericycle DPA which stated, “the Company has some history of prior civil and regulatory settlements, but no prior criminal history”. At least at this point, no unrelated civil or regulatory actions were assessed in the context of a FCPA enforcement action.
There was and continues to be much to consider and learn from the Stericycle FCPA enforcement action. I am sure we will be revisiting it in the future.
Tag: Lisa Monaco Speech
This episode of the FCPA Compliance Report begins a special two-part series with two well-known compliance professionals. Matt Galvin, most recently the CCO at AB-InBev and Dan Kahn, former acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Chief of the Fraud Section, and Chief of the FCPA Unit. Dan is now in private practice at DavisPolk. In this concluding Part 2, we take a deep dive into the Lisa Monaco Speech focusing on how the DOJ might look to access corporate culture, the Speech’s effect on the Benczkowski Memo, using the Monaco Speech and other external information for internal corporate presentations and the DOJ reviewing other corporate misconduct.
Resources
Matt Galvin on LinkedIn
Dan Kahn at Davis Polk
In this episode of the FCPA Compliance Report, I am joined by fan favorite Mike DeBernardis, partner at Hughes Hubbard. In this episode we look at compliance and temporal timeline developments from Q4 2021. Highlights of this podcast include:
- A deep dive into the Lisa Monaco speech, how it impacted the compliance temporal timeline whether it was a change or recalibration.
- Anti-Trust developments.
- The Biden Administration Strategy on Countering Corruption?
- Compliance in 2022 and moving forward.
Resources
Mike DeBernardis on HughesHubbard website.
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. This week, Matt and Tom begin a special two-part podcast series of several topics they will be following in 2022. Today in Part 1, we consider
- The Biden Administration’s Strategy on Countering Corruption, specifically around FinCEN and AML enforcement and how it may impact FCPA enforcement.
- The PCAOB was long dysfunctional before the Trump Administration eviscerated it. How will it change under the Biden Administration?
- The SEC plans for the regulation of and reporting on ESG.
- FCPA enforcement for recidivist corporations after DAG Lisa Monaco’s speech in October 2021.
Resources
Matt in Radical Compliance
Welcome to a special podcast series on the Compliance Podcast Network, 31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program. Over these 31 days series in January 2021, I will post a key part a best practices compliance program each day. By the end of January, you will have enough information to create, design or enhancement a compliance program. Each podcast will be short, at 6-8 minutes with three key takeaways that you can implement at little or no cost to help update your compliance program. I hope you will plan to join each day in January for this exploration of best practices in compliance.
2021 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the three enforcement actions were significant with multiple lessons for the compliance professional. In Deutsche Bank, we learned about the costs of a corrupt culture and recidivism, in Amec Foster Wheeler, we saw happens to a company which pays bribes and then tries back out; the criminals they are dealing with have them in an untenable position that they must continue to pay the bribes and how catastrophic failure in pre- and post-acquisition due diligence can lead to massive FCPA violations. Finally, in WPP, we saw how accepted business incentives can become perverse, what happens when you ignore whistleblowers. However, there were two major policy announcements from the Biden Administration which every compliance professional needs to not simply be aware of but study and implement solutions based upon these announcements.
In late October, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). The key changes announced in the Monaco Speech were as follows: (1) “today I am directing the department to restore prior guidance making clear that to be eligible for any cooperation credit, companies must provide the department with all non-privileged information about individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue. To be clear, a company must identify all individuals involved in the misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority.” This portends a return to the strictures of the Yates Memo. (2) “The second change I am announcing today deals with the issue of a company’s prior misconduct and how that affects our decisions about the appropriate corporate resolution. (3) The final change I am announcing today deals with the use of corporate monitors.” This final change is a rejection of the strictures laid out in the Benczkowski Memo regarding the DOJ use of corporate monitorships.
In November, the Biden Administration released the United States Strategy on Countering Corruption (the “Strategy”); subtitled “Pursuant To The National Security Study Memorandum On Establishing The Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States National Security Interest”; in response to President Biden’s prior declaration of corruption as a national security issue of the United States. While obviously focused on the US government’s role in leading the fight against corruption, the entire document portends a major sea change in the approach of fighting bribery and corruption, literally on a worldwide basis. For this reason alone, it should be studied by all compliance professionals. Obviously, this more holistic approach is most welcomed. Corruption does more than simply steal money from the world economy.
Three key takeaways:
- The Biden Administration released its Strategy on Countering Corruption.
- Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco gave a speech refocusing the DOJ’s efforts on FCPA and other white-collar crime.
- Even with a paucity of FCPA enforcement actions, there were multiple lessons for the compliance professional.
Categories
Year End Review, Part 2
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. On Tuesday, Matt and Tom began a special two-part year-end review of six topics which they saw as significant in 2021 and believe will be so into 2022 as well. They looked at SPACs, the Robinhood/GameStop phenomena and the new hybrid working environment and what is means for the compliance professional. Today in Part 2 we consider the Biden Administration’s Strategy on Countering Corruption, in conjunction with DAG Lisa Monaco’s speech on the refocus of the Department of Justice on FCPA enforcement and other white collar prosecutions, the continuing evolution of ransomware attacks and ESG in 2021 and beyond.
Resources
Matt in Radical Compliance
Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog
Categories
What 2021 Brought to Compliance
2021 was a very significant year for every compliance practitioner and compliance program. While there was a paucity of corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the three enforcement actions were significant with multiple lessons for the compliance professional. In Deutsche Bank, we learned about the costs of a corrupt culture and recidivism, in Amec Foster Wheeler, we saw happens to a company which pays bribes and then tries back out; the criminals they are dealing with have them in an untenable position that they must continue to pay the bribes and how catastrophic failure in pre- and post-acquisition due diligence can lead to massive FCPA violations. Finally, in WPP, we saw how accepted business incentives can become perverse, what happens when you ignore whistleblowers. However, there were two major policy announcements from the Biden Administration which every compliance professional needs to not simply be aware of but study and implement solutions based upon these announcements.
In late October, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco gave a Keynote Address at ABA’s 36th National Institute on White Collar Crime (Monaco Speech). Her remarks were noted by many commentators. Her remarks should be studied by every compliance professional as they portend a very large change in the way the DOJ and potentially other agencies enforce the FCPA. This has significant implications for every Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), compliance professional and corporate compliance programs.
The key changes announced in the Monaco Speech were as follows: (1) “today I am directing the department to restore prior guidance making clear that to be eligible for any cooperation credit, companies must provide the department with all non-privileged information about individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue. To be clear, a company must identify all individuals involved in the misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority.” This portends a return to the strictures of the Yates Memo. (2) “The second change I am announcing today deals with the issue of a company’s prior misconduct and how that affects our decisions about the appropriate corporate resolution. (3) The final change I am announcing today deals with the use of corporate monitors.” This final change is a rejection of the strictures laid out in the Benczkowski Memo regarding the DOJ use of corporate monitorships.
In November, the Biden Administration released the United States Strategy on Countering Corruption (the “Strategy”); subtitled “Pursuant To The National Security Study Memorandum On Establishing The Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States National Security Interest”; in response to President Biden’s prior declaration of corruption as a national security issue of the United States. While obviously focused on the US government’s role in leading the fight against corruption, the entire document portends a major sea change in the approach of fighting bribery and corruption, literally on a worldwide basis. For this reason alone, it should be studied by all compliance professionals.
The Strategy has five pillars. Pillar 1 is Modernizing, Coordinating, and Resourcing U.S. Government Efforts to Fight Corruption, with five strategic objectives (1) to enhance corruption related research, data collection, and analysis; (2) improve information sharing within the U.S. Government, with non-U.S.-Governmental entities, and internationally; (3) increase focus on the transnational dimensions of corruption; (4) organize and resource the fight against corruption, at home and abroad; and (5) integrate an anti-corruption focus into regional, thematic, and sectoral priorities.
Obviously, this more holistic approach is most welcomed. Corruption does more than simply steal money from the world economy. According to the Strategy, “Corruption robs citizens of equal access to vital services, denying the right to quality healthcare, public safety, and education. It degrades the business environment, subverts economic opportunity, and exacerbates inequality. It often contributes to human rights violations and abuses and can drive migration. As a fundamental threat to the rule of law, corruption hollows out institutions, corrodes public trust, and fuels popular cynicism toward effective, accountable governance.” I would add several others such damaging the fight against climate change, destroying ethic business practices and, of course, leading to transnational crime and terrorism.
I cannot wait to see what 2022 will bring the compliance community.
