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.
Tag: M&A
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.
In this episode, I visit with Don Stern, Managing Director of Corporate Monitoring & Consulting Services. We explore how to go about assessing ethics and compliance in the mergers and acquisition (M&A) context and the impact that M&A has on both the acquired entity and the acquirer. Stern began by noting the inherent risk in the entire M&A process. Yet, the culture perspective is not often considered in the pre-acquisition phase. Stern believes companies are making a big mistake in doing so. Companies spend huge amounts of resources to hire lawyers, investment bankers, accountants for the pre-acquisition phase. They scrub the financials, look at income and look at revenues and expenses. Yet they often spend almost no time in looking at issues like the ethical culture of the company to be acquired. Stern stated, “I’ve never quite understood that everyone understands the risk of any acquisition. That the company picture may not work out quite as rosy as was expected. They may be some synergies that were expected from an expense point of view that don’t quite work out.”
The lack of knowledge on each parties culture can lead to many problems in the post-acquisition phase. Stern emphasized that the key is to not only come in with a plan but to listen and be attentive while implementing the plan. This can lead to a standoff in accomplishing the integration steps required under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or similar legislation. However, this is the situation where an independent monitor can assist both parties. Even after closing, an independent integrity monitor can come in and help to smooth out the process. An independent third party comes in with credibility and experience which allows employees at the acquired entity to communicate their concerns in a way that really is very helpful to the acquiring company. Employees can communicate such basic issues as they do not understand the new training they are required to go through, how things do not seem to fit together or the most basic question of why they are now required to do something. Employees can explain why risk areas may exist in other places but not exist in some others. Someone who is truly independent, with no stake in the game, can help make those explanations in a non-threatening way. The key is that independent third-party expert.
In this episode I visit with Eric Feldman on the why’s, what’s and how’s of an independent assessment of a target. Feldman began with the observation that most of the issues in the M&A context come from the target or acquired company and most usually from the acquiring entity simply not paying enough attention during the pre-acquisition phase and making a discovery post-closing. This one of the reasons the Department of Justice (DOJ) has put such important stock in the pre-acquisition phase where a company needs to perform compliance due diligence and a risk assessment which will inform the entire process.
Near and dear to my mantra of Document, Document, and Document, was Feldman’s thoughts on keeping a thorough record of your entire process. Not only should the target (or at least you would hope) have a documented process of all of the above issues, but you should be sure to document your entire pre-acquisition process as well. This could be important if you discover any nefarious conduct in the pre-acquisition phase which you should report to the DOJ or if such discovery occurs after closing. If it happens after closing you will need to be able to document the reasonable steps you took in pre-closing and how you will remediate the issue(s) going forward.
Finally, your pre-acquisition investigation and due diligence will inform your post-acquisition steps. Hallmark 10 of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program mandates that companies will develop and implement policies and procedures for mergers and acquisitions requiring the company to conduct appropriate risk based due diligence on potential new business entities including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and anti-corruption due diligence. Obviously, this should be a documented process. By having an independent third party do this, with a documented process, it can lower the risk if there is a problem. As problems are identified, the acquiring entity can decide whether to go forward with the M&A. If there is a very specific identification of misconduct, the company can make a disclosure to the DOJ. By using this process, there is a road map created for remediating the issue as a part of your post-acquisition steps after closing.
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- M&A is not dead. (FT)
- Businesses worry about opening too soon. (NYT)
- Google institutes KYA. (NYT)
- Who will protect workers? (Houston Chronicle)
A company that does not perform adequate due diligence prior to a merger or acquisition may face both legal and business risks. Perhaps most commonly, inadequate due diligence can allow a course of bribery to continue – with all the attendant harms to a business’s profitability and reputation, as well as potential civil and criminal liability. While most compliance practitioners have been long aware of the requirement in the post-acquisition context, the 2012 FCPA Guidance focused many compliance practitioners of the need to engage in robust pre-acquisition due diligence.
This was expanded again in the 2017 Evaluation but the 2019 Guidance made even more clear the need for a robust compliance presence in the pre-acquisition phase. It stated, “A well-designed compliance program should include comprehensive due diligence of any acquisition targets. Pre-M&A due diligence enables the acquiring company to evaluate more accurately each target’s value and negotiate for the costs of any corruption or misconduct to be borne by the target. Flawed or incomplete due diligence can allow misconduct to continue at the target company, causing resulting harm to a business’s profitability and reputation and risking civil and criminal liability.
Three key takeaways:
- The results of your pre-acquisition due diligence will inform your post-acquisition integration and remediation going forward.
- Periodically review your M&A due diligence protocol.
- If red flags appear in pre-acquisition due diligence, they should be cleared.
Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance. Today, we have a quintet of Jay Rosen, Matt Kelly, Sarah Hadden, Jonathan Armstrong and Mike Volkov with a potpourri of topics and commentary on current events from the compliance perspective. Rants and shouts outs follow the commentary for this episode, with one public service announcement from across the pond.
- Mike Volkov takes a deep dive into the debate on whether a Chief Compliance Officer should report to the GC or not. Volkov shouts out to Harvard Law Professor Matthew Stephenson for his great blog site Global Anti-Corruption Blog and specifically his recent blog post, If You Don’t Think Conflicts of Interest Matter, Consider the Kurds.
- Jay Rosen discusses the role ethics and compliance in the Mergers and Acquisition process. Rosen shouts out General James Mattis’ and his remarks at the Alfred Smith Dinner where accepted Trump’s claim he was the ‘most-overrated general’ by noting Trump had said 3-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep was the ‘most-overrated actress.’
- Sarah Hadden takes things a different direction by reading the eBook Trump and Compliance which was published in late 2016 and was based on the Everything Compliance gang’s predictions of how compliance would fare under the Trump Administration. Hadden shouts out to a new section of CCI which will focus on those persons early in their compliance careers. It is certainly a welcome addition to the compliance discussion.
- Matt Kelly provides breaking news by discussing the SEC proposed changes to its Whistleblower Program. Kelly shouts out to Boston Celtic Enes Kantor for calling out the NBA on its hypocrisy on China.
- Jonathan Armstrong discusses the growing tide of US-style class actions coming to the UK and EU around the issue of data breaches under GDPR. Armstrong provides a public service announcement around the perils of using Apple Pay and the failure to Document Document Document.
- Tom Fox rants about the surreal news conference given by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney where he (1) admitted the President violated US law in requiring a quid pro quo from Ukraine for the Congressionally mandated US aid package, claiming it was ‘just politics’ and (2) admitted the President violated the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution by announcing the President had ordered the 2020 G-7 Summit to be held at Trump properties.
Resources:
From Jonathan Armstrong, on the always great Cordery Compliance site:
UK Data Protection Regulator Announces Intention to Fine BA after Data Breach
Life with GDPR – Episode 22 – Morrisons And Vicarious Liability
Client Alert: Doors open for data protection class action as appeal court allows Google claim to proceed?
From Matt Kelly, the coolest guy in Compliance, on Radical Compliance:
SEC Tees up Whistleblower Reforms
From Mike Volkov’s remarks, two articles from Compliance Week (sub req’d)
Point: Why CCOs should report to GC by Jeff Kaplan
Counterpoint: CCO, GC independence is critical by Matt Stankiewicz
From Sarah Hadden, the eBook published by CCI:
Trump and Compliance-the Conversation is Just Getting Started
The members of the Everything Compliance are:
- Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
- Mike Volkov – One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.
- Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
- Jonathan Armstrong –is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.com
- Sarah Hadden –Publisher at Corporate Compliance Insights. Hadden can be reached at Sarah@corporatecomplianceinsights.com
The host and producer (and sometime panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox the Compliance Evangelist. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- Trial date set in Theranos criminal trial. (WSJ)
- Deutsche Bank to lay of 20% of workforce. (NYT)
- 86 pounds of drugs found on Brazilian gov plane headed to G20. (Washington Post)
- Shareholders standing up to over-priced M&A deals. (FT)
In this episode I visit with Mark Lanpher, a partner at Shearman & Sterling LLP, practicing in the firm’s White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement group. Lanpher is a former Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel at the SEC. We take a deep dive into the July 2018 change in FCPA Enforcement Policy, announced by the Justice Department creating a safe harbor in mergers and acquisition enforcement actions brought under the FCPA. Some of the highlights from the podcast include:
- How did Matthew Miner’s announcement impact the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy re: M&A?
- What were the policy reasons behind the announcement?
- Was Miner’s announcement a codification of DOJ/SEC safe harbor policy first articulated in the 2012 FCPA Guidance?
- How did (or not) Miner’s announcement bring certainty to this area?
- What does it mean going forward?
In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:
- Judge says Roger Ng in negotiations with the DOJ, although his lawyer denies it. (New York Times)
- Colleges in ‘Willful Ignorance’ of corruption, say it ain’t so. (Law360)
- It’s a bad day when the FT Editorial Board spanks you. (Financial Times)
- Former Danske bank CEO charged in money-laundering scandal? (Reuters)
