Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission open public comment window – enforcement against illegal mergers.
Tag: M&A
Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty this week on 4 of 11 charges against her. The jury was unable to reach agreement on the remaining seven charges against her. Multiple media outlets have reported on the verdict. They include the Verdict itself in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ); what the verdict means for Silicon Valley, in the New York Times (NYT); questions on the victims of the Theranos fraud in Bloomberg and, of course, the lingering questions or how or even will Holmes serve any time, as reported in Fortune. Others have questioned whether the guilty verdict is an indictment of the entire Silicon Valley “fake it ‘til you make it” culture, as reported in The Verge.
I had two recent podcasts on the trial, Holmes and Theranos. The first, with white collar defense lawyer Kevin O’Brien, looked at the trial itself, the prosecution and defense cases as well as whether Holmes testimony hurt or helped her defense. The second, with Exiger President Brandon Daniels, considered the types of due diligence which you should engage in when considering a major investment. Both episodes were well received, pointing to the ongoing fascination with this major fraudster and how to parse out some lessons learned for the compliance professional.
From the testimony it was clear that Holmes knew exactly what she was doing all along. As reported by The Verge, “When it came to the investors, prosecutors had Holmes dead to rights. Unlike with the patients, she was in the room. There were emails and recordings. Holmes’ ties were clearer, and what she knew was clearer, too. The easiest part of this case to prove was about money, and that was where the prosecution spent the bulk of its time. Did Holmes lie to investors? The jury thought so on three counts”. In other words, the Theranos blood testing scam never did work.
But what are the lessons for the compliance professional? Daniels made clear in his podcast there were several lessons not only for companies looking to invest but in multiple business relationships such as potential joint venture partners, funded development partners and other types of business partnerships and ventures. He pointed out one thing to look at is your potential partner’s supply chain purchases; check it and challenge it. With Theranos, if someone saw the supply chain relationships with traditional blood testing equipment, it would lead him/her to ask, “Why is that occurring?” So why would Theranos be purchasing a competitor’s equipment?
If the answer came back the equipment is for testing and development comparison, why were those purchases at scale? Why did Theranos need so much of its competitor’s testing equipment. We now know it was because Theranos was testing blood samples on the Siemens blood testing equipment and claiming it was done on Theranos equipment. If it was for comparison purposes, you would not have expected Siemens’s equipment to have been purchased in such large numbers.
Another area for due diligence is whether the potential partner has the production capacity to build the units that they intend to achieve. This is critical when you are moving from protype to a commercial enterprise, as Theranos did with Walgreens. Of course, Walgreens not only failed to do the basic due diligence required on the Theranos blood testing machine but actually removed experts from its pre-acquisition due diligence team who raised such questions.
Another difficult area in investment due diligence is how to evaluate the founder(s) of a startup as potential post-acquisition or post-merger leadership candidates. Many startups have a leader who has a vision. Holmes did have a vision. I am firmly convinced that Holmes had a vision of a bloodless draw for testing. But often visionaries are not really execution people. They may not even be operational people, but they are visionaries.
Daniels noted, “maverick leaders, who have a unique vision, a unique idea, and then tap into a fundamental, almost primal need in a market are always going to get a lot of attention. Especially ones that are cult to personality which Elizabeth Holmes rightly has in place.” But even here, you need to ask some direct questions. Does the company really have the expertise at the very top to understand that what they are attempting to do is possible? Moreover, do they have the capacity, the expertise, the fundamental understanding of the component of the device, or the innovation that would be necessary to know if full scale production is even possible
A key step in the production process is a prototype. Is there a minimum viable product (MVP) that can be built and tested? This would help inform if key management personnel have “a fundamental understanding of how the core parts of the process work? Do they have an understanding how they lived the market need? Finally, have they prototyped the product to the point where you could actually demonstrate that it will work, even if you’re eons away from it being productized and scaling?” From there you should move on the to having a “seasoned medical professional, a seasoned medical device expert either in-house or as a company partner and the right management team to assess whether or not what they were doing is viable is so important.”
Theranos also serves as an excellent example of the mandates from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) in a best practices compliance program. You must start with pre-acquisition due diligence but that is only the starting point. The data you glean in pre-acquisition due diligence should serve as your baseline for ongoing monitoring of any company you acquire in the post-acquisition phase. It is this coupling of pre-acquisition due diligence with the post-acquisition phase in a best practices compliance program which is another key lesson from Theranos.
In investment due diligence, due diligence tends to be a point-in-time which looks at the dynamics of the business, but you need to couple due diligence on an ongoing basis because the risks you assess today may well change tomorrow. Daniels noted, “you have to continuously monitor the issues to make sure that your investments decisions in terms of production, your decisions in terms of your capabilities are sound and there is continuous monitoring.”
The Holmes verdict will be studied as a part of the overall story of Theranos. There are many lessons to be learned from Theranos for the compliance professional. But perhaps we should start with one of the most basic forms of due diligence. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Or if you want to channel your inner Ronnie Reagan, “Trust but verify” even in due diligence.
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- Seller’s remorse (they bought me and were mean).(WSJ)
- Retro is cool again. (WSJ)
- SFO outgunned. (Bureau of Investigative Journalism)
- No more Royal Dutch. (NYT)
Welcome to a special five-part podcast series sponsored by K2 Integrity. This month we consider the intersection of compliance, diligence and mergers & acquisitions (M&A). I am joined by Hannah Coleman, Managing Director in K2 Integrity’s Investigations and Risk Advisory practice. She specializes in fast-moving, complex, and specialized research assignments in a variety of areas including investigative due diligence, corporate contests, intellectual property investigations, media transparency assessments, and litigation support. Also joining this week’s series is Tom Pannell, Managing Director in K2 Integrity’s Investigations and Risk Advisory practice. With a focus on financial investigations, Tom leads multi-disciplinary teams working with corporate clients and their legal advisors responding to crisis events, including multi-jurisdictional white-collar crime, misconduct, financial statement fraud, anti-bribery and corruption incidents, and compliance risk advisory work. In this episode, I visit with Tom about deals through a global lens.
Join us tomorrow for our final episode as we consider some post-closing integration issues.
For more on K2 Integrity, check out their website, here.
In this episode, I visited with Don Stern, Managing Director of Corporate Monitoring & Consulting Services. We consider how the M&A process benefits from independent oversight. Stern believes the best time to bring in an independent is “as early as is practicable”. By doing so there can be preliminary discussions with senior management about the process, sometimes at the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) level and at other times with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). From these initial meetings an independent monitor could be a part of the acquirer’s team assembled for the project. He also noted there would probably be a due diligence room with documents made available for the acquiring company to review under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). That could be meetings where teams from one company meet with teams from the other company. Stern reminded us that M&A work to some extent is “a fire drill, as everyone’s working very hard in compressed time schedules, trying to do a lot in a very short period of time.” This means at times issues pop up which may require the companies to further negotiate the terms of an escrow or other risk management protection for the buyer.
A key is the independent nature of the monitor. Part of it is that they have no stake in the outcome, no stock to vest or other remuneration. Also, it is natural for the target company’s employees to have their guard up as they are more than a little wary about anybody coming in and asking a question. Stern said, “I find that people open up, I’m more willing to be forthcoming when somebody’s outside either company comes in and is asking the questions really in a non-threatening way. The independent monitor is just looking for the facts. I find that we are able to get more information than I think we would otherwise get if we were not independent.”
This FCPA Safe Harbor for M&A re-emphasizes how powerful a tool an independent monitor can be in the M&A context. Stern ended his remarks by noting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) certainly sees it as good practice to have a third party independent involved on both the company side and the reporting side, if required. All of this lends credibility to your ethics and compliance program. If your company finds itself under scrutiny from a M&A transaction, you can take some comfort in the strategies outlined in this series.
In this episode, I visit with Rod Grandon, Managing Director of Government Services, from Affiliated Monitors, Inc. we consider the types of things a monitor would review to determine if a company adequately considered ethics and compliance during the M&A process. Grandon sees two distinct phases in the M&A process; pre- and post-acquisition. In each phase an independent monitor would look at different aspects of it. The first is the planning, the negotiation and the due diligence. This review goes up to the point at which the transaction is completed. From there is the post-acquisition phase, the integration phase. Grandon sees a distinct role in both the pre and post-acquisition phases for an independent monitoring. During the pre-acquisition transaction phase an “independent monitor can come in without preconceived notions, without shackles, as to any corporate expectations and do that deep dive that is really necessary for the parties if that information is shared or at least one of the parties to gain an understanding of what is being purchased or what is missing.”
In the integration phase, he noted the type of culture which exists through working with the respective workforces to understand what are their cultures. Are these cultures compatible in terms of bringing together a program to promote ethics and compliance? This requires, in many cases, deep dives, particularly the use of focus groups to get down to the workforce to get a true understanding of what some of the cultural elements that are in play. And in many cases, this is just a critical and complicated piece. From there, Grandon advocates moving into the controls area to literally put an independent set of eyes on the internal compliance controls. This is to help the parties understand the risk environment they find themselves in and the culture that is in play for the post-acquisition phase.
Moving to the post-acquisition phase Grandon noted that the independent monitor can also provide a key piece to help the integration phase. It can be a critical asset in this process of coming in helping management understand what it has acquired. This is the point there are no limitations on getting in and doing that deep dive with the workforce which already knows it’s been merged or acquired. Also the public already knows so no excuses for not getting in and getting a very good understanding the culture and how the workforce sees the ethics and compliance structure of the company.
In this episode, I visit with Eric Feldman about planning out your post-acquisition merger strategy. Recent FCPA enforcement actions have stressed that an acquiring entity apply or ascertain that its Code of Conduct, policies and procedures regarding corruption are consistent with the acquired company’s policies and processes. If they are not consistent, the acquiring company should apply it’s Code of Conduct and anti-corruption policies and procedures to the newly acquired company within 18 months or “as quickly as is practicable”. Employees from the newly acquired entity must be trained on their new Code of Conduct and policy and procedure. There must also be a forensic audit to see if any FCPA issues pop up. This same language was brought forward into the 2020 FCPA Resource Guidance, 2nd edition.
If pre-acquisition due diligence is done correctly, it will identify risks associated with the target and a risk assessment of that company should follow as a part of your pre-acquisition due diligence along the line to your post-acquisition, to give you a roadmap of what areas of risk need to be addressed immediately. Some of the things you would specifically look for in an integration plan are around internal controls. Feldman noted, “Are you going to use the acquired entities internal controls or are you going to put your company’s internal controls regime in place? If so, how are you going to integrate them? How are you going to address any training and awareness gaps as it relates to ethics and compliance responsibilities of the employees, of the new company that are coming into your company? Do people understand the acquiring company’s anti-corruption posture and their ABC policies and procedures and all of that needs to be well documented into an integration plan.”
Near and dear to my heart is Document Document Document as it is very hard to demonstrate the pre and post-acquisition due diligence to an external entity like the DOJ without documentation. The real issue has to do with how you can demonstrate to a government regulator that you have done everything that you can do as a company to identify risk associated with corruption and misconduct. Moreover, if you do identify the misconduct, that you have taken the right steps to inform the government and make that disclosure.