Tag: Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks

Categories
Blog

Argentieri at ABA White Collar Conference: Compliance Programs, Part 2

There were recently two significant speeches by Department of Justice (DOJ) officials at the American Bar Association National Institute on White Collar Crime. The first was by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. The second was by Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri. They both had important remarks for the compliance professional. I have taken a deep dive into both speeches and what indicates compliance programs, compliance professionals, DOJ expectations, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement going forward. We have previously considered the Monaco speech and began exploring the speech by Nicole Argentieri. Today, we conclude with remarks by Argentieri regarding how the DOJ will put these policies into practice and what they mean for compliance professionals and programs going forward.

Robust Compliance

The DOJ has either concluded or is in the middle of an FCPA industry sweep through oil and energy trading companies. In addition to Gunvor, there have been enforcement actions involving Vitol Trading, Glencore, and Freepoint. Argentieri noted that as a part of their resolutions with the DOJ, “each of these trading companies was required to make critical enhancements to their compliance programs to prevent future violations of the FCPA. Companies that take forward-leaning steps on compliance will be better positioned to certify that they have met their compliance obligations at the end of the term of their agreements, as is now required in corporate resolutions with the Criminal Division. These prosecutions also help set the tone for the energy trading industry as a whole — they show that a robust compliance function is critical.”

Corporate Culture

It all begins with corporate culture. The DOJ will assess the corporate culture and a company’s prior misconduct in determining the appropriate form of resolution and the financial penalty. This is where culture becomes critical, particularly for the recidivist, because, as Argentieri noted, “we will not hesitate to require substantial penalties — including, where appropriate, guilty pleas — for companies that show themselves to be repeat offenders.”

Coupling that statement with the superior resolution obtained by ABB and Albemarle shows that the DOJ is serious about corporate culture. The bottom line is that a company can move to a culture of compliance if senior management is committed to the effort. One need only consider the superior result obtained by the first three-time recidivist ABB. Culture is critical, and you must demonstrate that you have assessed and worked to improve your corporate culture.

Clawbacks and Holdbacks

One of the key initiatives brought forward under DAG Monaco’s tenure has been around incentives and consequences. However, under DAG Monaco’s tenure, incentives and consequence management were further refined in the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (2023 ECCP). It was also enshrined in the DOJ Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program (Pilot Program), which has two components: (1) incentivization of compliance and (2) disincentives through clawbacks and holdbacks.

Argentieri pointed to the SAP resolution as a key example of how clawbacks and holdbacks can benefit a company. She noted, “Even before its criminal resolution, SAP had adjusted its compensation incentives to align with compliance objectives and reduce corruption risk.” She said, “SAP also took advantage of the second part of the Pilot Program, which allows companies to reduce their fines when they withhold compensation from culpable employees.” The DOJ “reduced SAP’s criminal penalty by over $100,000 for compensation that the company withheld from certain employees.”

However, the pilot program requires a real effort from the company regarding clawbacks and holdbacks. SAP “went to great lengths to defend this corporate decision, including through litigation.’ Argentieri believes that “These actions sent a clear message to other SAP employees—and employees of companies everywhere—that misconduct will have individual financial consequences. This is another example of the company’s remediation that supported our decision to award a 40% fine reduction.”

Before SAP, Albemarle was “the first company to receive a fine reduction under the Pilot Program in an FCPA resolution last year.” While Gunvor did not engage in clawbacks or holdbacks, Argentieri applauded their efforts in incentivizing compensation, relating that “Gunvor had already updated and evaluated its compensation policy better to incentivize compliance with the law and corporate policies.”

Argentieri concluded this section by stating, “All of these policies should send a simple, but strong, message: being a good corporate citizen is not just the right thing to do. It is good business. Those who step up will be able to unlock the benefits afforded by our policies. And those who do not will face stiff punishments. And for companies making the tough decision of whether to disclose, take note — we now have more ways than ever to discover misconduct.”

The Bottom Line

DAG Monaco’s speeches and Nicole Argentieri’s provided significant information for the compliance professional. Both are the DOJ expectations for a best practices compliance program and what a company needs to do if they find themselves under an FCPA investigation. DAG Monaco made four key points: (1) the DOJ will invest the most significant resources in the most serious cases, hold individuals accountable, and pursue tough penalties for repeat offenders absent a significant culture shift and remediation. (2) The Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program is a key component of enforcement and incentives. (3) The DOJ whistleblower bounty program should lead to new referrals to the DOJ. (4) Compliance professionals should be ready to address new, disruptive technologies, such as the rise of AI, through their corporate enforcement programs.

Argentieri emphasized details in compliance programs. It all starts with corporate culture, but companies must strive towards robust compliance programs, including effective internal controls, incentives for employees to work ethically and in compliance, and significant consequences for failure to do so: vigorous internal reporting, triage, and investigative protocols. Compliance professionals and compliance programs have never been more important for companies.

Categories
Blog

Ten Top Lessons from Recent FCPA Settlements – Lesson No. 6, Clawbacks and Holdbacks

Over the past 15 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have made clear, through three Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions and speeches, their priorities in investigations, remediations, and best practices compliance programs. Every compliance professional should study each of these enforcement actions closely for the lessons learned and direct communications from the DOJ. They should guide not simply your actions should you find yourself in an investigation but also how you should think about priorities.

The three FCPA enforcement actions are ABB from December 2022, Albemarle from November 2023, and SAP from January 2024. Taken together, they point out a clear path for the company that finds itself in an investigation: using extensive remediation to avoid a monitor. They also provide insight for the compliance professional into what the DOJ expects in an ongoing best practices compliance program.

Over a series of blog posts, I will lay out what I believe are the Top Ten lessons from these enforcement actions for compliance professionals who find themselves in an enforcement action. Today we continue  with Number 6, Clawbacks and Holdbacks. These strategies are relatively new to the DOJ’s arsenal, and they want companies to employ them in enforcement actions. While the DOJ and SEC have long made clear that they view monetary structure for incentive compensation, as far back as the FCPA Resource Guide, 1st edition (2012), they did not focus as intensely on the disincentive side of the equation. Prior to the Monaco Memo, clawbacks had not been generally seen as a necessary part of a compliance program.

This began to change in the Monaco Memo. It is now unequivocally required by the DOJ and listed as a crucial area of DOJ inquiry in the 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. Moreover, having such a penalty in place is also seen as part of an excellent corporate culture, which not only penalizes those who engage in unethical behavior in violation of a company’s policies and procedures but will also “promote compliant behavior and emphasize the corporation’s commitment to its compliance programs and its culture.”

The DOJ was told to look into whether companies have “clawback” clauses in their pay agreements and whether “as soon as the company found out about the misconduct, the company has, as much as possible, taken affirmative steps to carry out such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions led to or contributed to the criminal conduct at issue.”

The Monaco Memo directed “to develop further guidance by the end of the year on how to reward corporations that develop and apply compensation clawback policies, including how to shift the burden of corporate financial penalties away from shareholders—who in many cases do not have a role in misconduct—onto those more directly responsible.” This clause is an effort by the DOJ to keep companies from shielding recalcitrant executives from the consequences of their own illegal and unethical conduct.

However, the Monaco Memo clarified that it is not simply having a written policy and procedure. If warranted, there must be corporate action under the clawback policy and procedure. In the Albemarle and SAP enforcement actions, the DOJ evaluated the companies’ actions, “Following the corporation’s discovery of misconduct, a corporation has, to the extent possible, taken affirmative steps to execute on such agreements and clawback compensation previously paid to current or former executives whose actions or omissions resulted in or contributed to the criminal conduct at issue.”

Albemarle

Albemarle went in a different direction—not clawbacks, but holdbacks. While the DOJ has made much noise about clawbacks from recalcitrant executives, Albemarle engaged in holdbacks, where they did not pay bonuses to certain employees involved in the conduct or those who had oversight. The NPA stated, “The company withheld bonuses totaling $763,453 during the course of its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing.” The illegal conduct involved those who “(a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct; and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct.” The significance of this effort was vital as it qualified Albemarle for an additional fine reduction of a dollar-for-dollar credit of the amount of the withheld bonuses under the Criminal Division’s March 2023 Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program. 

SAP

SAP had extensive holdbacks as well. The DPA noted SAP withheld bonuses totaling $109,141 during the course of its internal investigation from employees who engaged in suspected wrongdoing in connection with the conduct under investigation, or who both (a) had supervisory authority over the employee(s) or business area engaged in the misconduct and (b) knew of, or were willfully blind to, the misconduct, and further engaged in substantial litigation to defend its withholding from those employees, which qualified SAP for an additional fine reduction in the amount of the withheld bonuses under the DOJ’s Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Pilot Program.

The DOJ has given significant credit to both Albemarle and SAP for their holdbacks, and we would expect them to continue to do so. If your organization has not instituted a Clawback/Holdback Policy, now is the time to do so rather than wait until you are in the middle of an investigation or enforcement action. Also, remember that the DOJ gives a dollar-for-dollar credit on any settlement where the company engaged in either clawbacks or holdbacks.

Categories
Blog

The SAP FCPA Enforcement Action-Part 4: The Fines: Self-Disclose, Self-Disclose, Self-Disclose

We continue our exploration of the SAP Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action. Today we go full geek in a look at the fine and penalty and most importantly what the fine and penalty communicate about what the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) want from companies embroiled in a FCPA investigation. First the numbers.

DOJ

According to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the criminal fine and penalty is in the amount of $63,590,859, equal to approximately 54% of the Criminal Penalty ($63,700,000), reduced by $109,141 under the Criminal Division’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks. Additionally, the DOJ agreed to a “credit toward the Criminal Penalty the amount paid by the Company to authorities in South Africa for violations of South African law related to the same conduct described in the Statement of Facts, up to a maximum of $55,100,000 (the “Penalty Credit Amount”).”

SEC

According to the SEC Order, “SAP acknowledges that the Commission is not imposing a civil penalty based upon the imposition of an $ 118.8 million criminal fine as part of SAP’s resolution with the United States Department of Justice.” However, SAP did agree to disgorgement in the following amount, $85,046,035 and prejudgment interest of $13,405,149, for a total payment of $98,451,184. SAP received a disgorgement offset of up to $59,455,779 based on the U.S. dollar value for any payments made or to be made to the Government of South Africa or a South African state-owned entity in any parallel proceeding against Respondent in South Africa.

The SEC Order also reported these additional fines and penalties.

  • On March 15, 2022, SAP entered into a civil settlement with the South African Special Investigating Unit and others relating to the DWS conduct described above and paid ZAR 11 344.78 million ($21.4 million), which represented reimbursement of the entire amount SAP received from DWS under the 2015 and 2016 deals with DWS.
  • On October 18, 2023, SAP entered into a settlement agreement with the South African Special Investigative Unit and others relating to the Transnet conduct described above, pursuant to which it paid ZAR 214.39 million (approximately $11.42 million based on the exchange rate on the date of payment).
  • On November 1, 2023, SAP entered into a civil settlement with the South African Special Investigating Unit and others relating to the Eskom conduct described above, pursuant to which it paid ZAR 500 million (approximately $26.63 million based on the exchange rate on the date of payment).

The bottom line, as reported by the FCPA Blog is SAP agreed to pay a $118.8 million criminal penalty to the DOJ and an administrative forfeiture of $103.4 million to the SEC. SAP has also paid approximately $59.4 million to various South African authorities, for which they received a penalty credit of $55 million from the DOJ.

Fine Calculation

Let’s start with the DOJ. The basis comes from the US Sentencing Guidelines.  From the DPA we note the following:

  1. The November 1, 2023 U.S.S.G. are applicable to this matter.
  2. Offense Level. Based upon U.S.S.G. § 2Cl.1, the total offense level is 42, calculated as follows:
  • 2Cl.l(a)(2) Base Offense Level 12
  • 2Cl.l(b)(l) More than One Bribe +2
  • § 2Cl.l(b)(2), 2Bl.l(b)(l)(M) +24

Benefit (More than $ 65,000,000)

  • 2C 1.1 (b )(3) Involvement of High-Level Public Official +4

TOTAL                                                                                      42

  1. Base Fine Based upon U.S.S.G. § 8C2.4(d), the base fine is

$ I50,000,000.

  1. Culpability Score. Based upon U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5, the culpability score is

6, calculated as follows:

  • 8C2.5(a) Base Culpability Score 5
  • 8C2.5(b )(3)(B)(i) Unit had 200 or more employees + 3

and High-Level Personnel

  • 8C2.5(g)(2) Cooperation, Acceptance -2

TOTAL                                                                                      6

Calculation of Fine Range:

Base Fine                                                                     $ I50,000,000

Multipliers                                                       1.2 (min) / 2.4 (max)

Fine Range                                     $180,000,000 to $360,000,000

The key area to noted is the highlighted line entitled “§ 8C2.5(g)(2) Cooperation, Acceptance”.

The reason this line is so critical is that it is the one area under the US Sentencing Guidelines that a company can receive a discount or at least credit for actions it has taken to reduce the multiplier and thereby reduce the overall fine range. In the Sentencing Guidelines it states,

(g)       Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Acceptance of Responsibility 

 If more than one applies, use the greatest:

  8C2.5(g)(1) (1)       If the organization (A) prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation; and (B) within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the offense, reported the offense to appropriate governmental authorities, fully cooperated in the investigation, and clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, subtract 5 points; or

 8C2.5(g)(2) (2)       If the organization fully cooperated in the investigation and clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, subtract 2 points; or

 8C2.5(g)(3) (3)       If the organization clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility for its criminal conduct, subtract 1 point.

All this means a company if company self-discloses to the DOJ, it can receive a 5-point discount off the overall multiplier. SAP did not self-disclose so it lost this discount. If SAP had self-disclosed the multiplier range would have been something like 0.7 to 1.4, making the fine range $126 million to $252 million. From there the discount under the Sentencing Guidelines led the following “The Fraud Section and the Office and the Company agree, based on the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, that the appropriate criminal penalty is $118,800,000 (the “Criminal Penalty”). This reflects a 40% discount off the 10th percentile of the Sentencing Guidelines fine range.” By my estimation, this failure to self-disclose cost SAP an additional $20,000,000 under the Sentencing Guidelines alone.

But the analysis does not end there as the overall fine and penalty is also governed by the Corporate Enforcement Policy, under which a company can garner a full declination if the following criteria are met (1) self-disclosure, (2) extensive cooperation, (3) extensive remediation, and (4) profit disgorgement. Obviously, SAP failed to meet this burden as it did not self-disclose so a full Declination was never in the cards. But the company could and did receive credit under the Corporate Enforcement Policy with a monetary penalty in the amount of $63,590,859, equal to approximately 54% of the Criminal Penalty. There was a further reduction of the overall criminal fine, reduced by $109,141 under the DOJ’s Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks.

Moreover, under the Corporate Enforcement Policy, SAP’s failure to self-disclose cost it an opportunity of at least 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range. Its actions as a criminal recidivist, resulted in it not receiving a reduction of at least 50% and up to 75% will generally not be from the low end of the U.S.S.G. fine range but rather at the 40% amount noted above. SAP’s failure to self-disclose cost it an estimated $20 million under the Sentencing Guidelines. It’s failure to self-disclose and recidivism cost it a potential $94.5 million in discounts under the Corporate Enforcement Policy.

While all these numbers might be enough to make your head swim (as it did mine); the significance and why I went through it in this detail is that the DOJ is clearly sending the message that self-disclosure is the single most important thing a company can do in any FCPA investigation or enforcement action. Kenneth Polite said that when announcing the updated Corporate Enforcement Policy in January 2023; it was enshrined the new Monitor Selection Policy as the number one reason for a company not having a monitor required. I heard Fraud Section head Glenn Leon say it as well at Compliance Week 2023 in a Fireside Chat with Billy Jacobsen.

The DOJ’s message could not be any clearer. Self-disclose; Self-disclose; Self-disclose.

 Resources

SEC Order

DOJ DPA

Join us tomorrow where we conclude with lessons learned for the compliance professional.