Tag: Stone v. Ritter

Categories
Blog

The World Has Changed: McDonald’s and the Oversight Duty of Officers-Part 3

This week, we are exploring a shift in the duties of care owed by corporate officers to the corporation. This shift is coming through the Chancery Court of Delaware in the case of McDonald’s Corporation and its former Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s Corporation, David Fairhurst and his part in the creation of an absolute toxic atmosphere of sexual harassment at the very highest levels of the organization. The case is styled In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, and in it, the court formally recognizes the oversight duties of officers of Delaware corporations. Today we discuss the role of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) in both the reasoning for the decision and what it means for CCOs going forward.

Perhaps one of the most interesting parts of the court’s opinion is that it draws from the US Sentencing Guidelines and their creation of the Chief Compliance Officer position as both reasons for the decision and as a guide to how the CCO position will be impacted by this ruling. The judge pointed to the US Sentencing Guidelines as a key basis for the creation of the original Caremark Doctrine. The court stated that a key reason for “recognizing the board’s duty of oversight was the importance of having compliance systems in place so the corporation could receive credit under the federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines.” However, the Guidelines did not stop at the board level. The US Sentencing Guidelines mandated the creation of the CCO position.

Specifically, the “Guidelines state that “[h]igh- level personnel of the organization shall ensure that the organization has an effective compliance and ethics program” and such senior person(s) “be assigned overall responsibility for the compliance and ethics program.” The Guidelines went on to define an organization’s “high-level personnel” as “individuals who have substantial control over the organization or who have a substantial role in the making of policy within the organization,” which includes “a director; an executive officer; an individual in charge of a major business or functional unit of the organization, such as sales, administration, or finance; and an individual with a substantial ownership interest.”

The court somewhat dryly concluded “It would seem hard to argue that, simply by virtue of being an officer, the Chief Compliance Officer could not owe a duty of oversight. That, however, is the logical implication of Fairhurst’s position that only directors can owe a duty of oversight.”

The responsibilities of the CCO are wide and sometimes varied. Here the court stated, ““[s]pecific individual(s) within the organization shall be delegated day-to-day operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program. Individual(s) with operational responsibility shall report periodically to high-level personnel and, as appropriate, to the governing authority, or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority, on the effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.” But the Delaware court also provided CCOs with some additional ammunition in their quest for true influence in a corporation by stating that “to carry out such operational responsibility, such individual(s) shall be given adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority.”

Finally, the CCO has a broad scope within an organization. Indeed the court noted, that only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has as broad a remit, stating “Although the CEO and Chief Compliance Officer likely will have company-wide oversight portfolios, other officers generally have a more constrained area of authority. With a constrained area of responsibility comes a constrained version of the duty that supports an Information-Systems Claim.”

Yet the breadth of this portfolio does not mean a CCO can be liable for every corporate failure, even those directly in culture or compliance. Here the standard of liability for the CCO is critical and standard is breach of the duty of loyalty through bad faith. The court noted, that in the decision of Stone v. Ritter, upholding the original Caremark decision, “the Delaware Supreme Court adopted the Guttman formulation and stated that a breach of the duty of loyalty, such as acting in bad faith, was a “necessary condition to liability.” After Stone, then-Vice Chancellor Strine acknowledged that Caremark duties carried overtones of care, but explained that “to hold directors liable for a failure in monitoring, the directors have to have acted with a state of mind consistent with a conscious decision to breach their duty of care.”

Rarely, if ever do you see a CCO engage in bad faith. There have been some instances but I can think or only one or two that rise to the level of bad faith. The good news for CCOs is that while there may be a new cause of action against them for a duty of oversight; if there is a compliance program in place and if that compliance program detects wrongdoing which is reported up to the Board; a CCO has most probably met their duty under this decision.

Please join me tomorrow as I explore how this court decision, together with the CCO certification mandate by the Department of Justice, the Monaco Memo and the new Corporate Enforcement Policy will all change the relationships and dynamics of Chief Compliance Officers in the corporate world.

Categories
Blog

A Caremark Retrospective: Part III – Lessons for Today

Over this short blog post series I have been exploring the original Caremark and Stone v. Ritter decisions from the Delaware Supreme Court. The former decision was released in 1996 and the latter, some ten years later in 2006. The original Caremark decision laid the foundation for the modern obligations of Boards of Directors in oversight of compliance in general and a company’s risk management profile in particular. Stone v. Ritter confirmed the ongoing vitality of the original Caremark decision. In Part 1, we reviewed the underlying facts of the Caremark decision and in Part II, we considered the court holdings and rationales in Caremark and Stone v. Ritter. Today, I want to review what those decisions mean for today’s Board of Directors, Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and compliance professional.

Bribery, Fraud and Corruption

One of the things that struck me about both decisions was how timely the underlying facts were. In Caremark, a 1996 decision with the corruption going back into the 1980s, the case involved a company which provided patient care and managed care services and a substantial part of the revenues generated by the company was derived through third party payments, insurers, and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs. Medicare and Medicaid payments were governed under the Anti-Referral Payments Law (“ARPL”) which prohibited health care providers (HCPs) from paying any form of remuneration (i.e., kickbacks) to physicians to induce them to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to Caremark products or services.

To get around this prescription, Caremark entered various contracts for services (e.g., consultation agreements and research grants) with physicians at least some of whom prescribed or recommended services or products that Caremark provided to Medicare recipients and other patients. Moreover, Caremark had a decentralized governance and operational structure which allowed wide latitude to the business units to enter into such agreements without corporate or any centralized compliance or legal oversight. The results were about what you would expect.

In Stone v. Ritter, the AmSouth bank was induced to open a custodial account for two investment advisers who induced some 40 investors into a fraudulent investment, involving the construction of medical clinics overseas, by misrepresenting the nature and the risk of that investment. The bank provided custodial accounts for the investors and to distribute monthly interest payments to each account upon receipt of a check from the investment advisors. The scheme went on for about two years before the sapped investors stopped getting paid and began to contact the bank.

Federal bank examiners examined AmSouth’s compliance with its reporting and other obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). AmSouth “entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) in which AmSouth agreed: first, to the filing by USAO of a one-count Information in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, charging AmSouth with failing to file SARs; and second, to pay a $40 million fine. In conjunction with the DPA, the USAO issued a “Statement of Facts,” which noted that although in 2000 “at least one” AmSouth employee suspected that Hamric was involved in a possibly illegal scheme, AmSouth failed to file SARs in a timely manner.” From my reading of these facts, it appears that there was ample evidence an illegal scheme was ongoing, and a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) should have been filed. As with the underlying facts of Caremark, the underlying facts of Stone v. Ritter are still the basis for enforcement actions today.

Caremark – The Evolution of Board Duties

To create the modern Caremark Doctrine the Delaware Supreme Court had to overcome prior existing Delaware law regarding the board’s obligations. That decision from 1963, is known as  Allis-Chalmers, addressed the question of potential liability of board members for losses experienced by the corporation as a result of the corporation having violated US antitrust laws. There was no claim in that case that the directors knew about the behavior of subordinate employees of the corporation that had resulted in the liability.

Rather,  the claim asserted was that the directors ought to have known of it and if they had known they would have been under a duty to bring the corporation into compliance with the law and save the corporation from the loss. In Allis-Chalmers the Court found “absent cause for suspicion there is no duty upon the directors to install and operate a corporate system of espionage to ferret out wrongdoing which they have no reason to suspect exists.” As there were no grounds for suspicion in by the board, the directors were blamelessly unaware of the conduct leading to the corporate liability.

The Court found that the obligations for a board had evolved significantly from 1963, most notably in three areas. First, in the area of corporate takeovers, the court viewed “the seriousness with which the corporation law views the role of the corporate board.” The second area was the recognition as an “essential predicate for satisfaction of the board’s supervisory and monitoring role under Section 141 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.” The third and final change was the 1992 US Sentencing Guides and the “potential impact of the federal organizational sentencing guidelines on any business organization. Any rational person attempting in good faith to meet an organizational governance responsibility would be bound to take into account this development and the enhanced penalties and the opportunities for reduced sanctions that it offers.”

To effectuate this change, the court stated “I am of the view that a director’s obligation includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure that a corporate information and reporting system, which the board concludes is adequate, exists, and that failure to do so under some circumstances may, in theory at least, render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards.” Moreover, “it is important that the board exercise a good faith judgment that the corporation’s information and reporting system is in concept and design adequate to assure the board that appropriate information will come to its attention in a timely manner as a matter of ordinary operations, so that it may satisfy its responsibility.”

Conclusion

It is this final language which forms the basis of the modern Caremark Doctrine. There has been expansion of the Doctrine from this basic language over the past 25 years. Hopefully every board is aware of their obligations and are actually meeting them. However, every CCO and compliance professional needs to make the board aware of its Caremark obligations and then educate them on how to fulfill those obligations.

Categories
Blog

A Caremark Retrospective: Part II – Holdings and Rationale

Today, I continue my exploration of two of the most significant cases regarding Boards of Directors and corporate compliance; the Caremark and Stone v. Ritter decisions. The former decision was released in 1996 and the latter, some ten years later in 2006. The original Caremark decision laid the foundation for the modern obligations of Boards of Directors in oversight of compliance in general and a company’s risk management profile in particular. Stone v. Ritter confirmed the ongoing vitality of the original Caremark decision. Yesterday, in Part 1, we reviewed the underlying facts of the Caremark decision. Today, in Part II, we consider the holdings and the legal reasoning. Perhaps the most interesting thing about both cases is that even though the Court in Caremark delineated the doctrine and in Stone v. Ritter confirmed it, both Courts ruled against the moving parties and for the defendant corporate Boards.

Caremark

In Caremark, the Court began by noting that director liability for a breach of the duty to exercise appropriate attention can come up in two distinct contexts. In the first, liability can occur from a board decision that results “in a loss because that decision was ill advised or “negligent””. In the second, board liability for a loss “may be said to arise from an unconsidered failure of the board to act in circumstances in which due attention would, arguably, have prevented the loss.”

However, any decision is tempered by the following, what “may not widely be understood by courts or commentators who are not often required to face such questions, is that compliance with a director’s duty of care can never appropriately be judicially determined by reference to the content of the board decision that leads to a corporate loss, apart from consideration of the good faith or rationality of the process employed.” In other words, if there is a process or protocol in place a board cannot be said to have violated its duty, even with “degrees of wrong extending through “stupid” to “egregious” or “irrational”.” To do so would abrogate the Business Judgment Rule.

The Caremark court went so far as to cite Learned Hand for the following, “They are the general advisors of the business and if they faithfully give such ability as they have to their charge, it would not be lawful to hold them liable. Must a director guarantee that his judgment is good? Can a shareholder call him to account for deficiencies that their votes assured him did not disqualify him for his office? While he may not have been the Cromwell for that Civil War, Andrews did not engage to play any such role.”

However, there is a second type of liability which boards can run afoul of under Caremark, and it is the one which seems to the liability under which most boards are found wanting in successful Caremark claims. It is when “director liability for inattention is theoretically possible entail  circumstances in which a loss eventuates not from a decision but, from unconsidered inaction.” This was a departure from prior Delaware case law which said that a board did not have to look for wrongdoing but only had to investigate if informed about it. That was from an old 1963 decision and the Court relied on the 1992 US Sentencing Guidelines to note how such views were no longer accepted. Board obligations had changed by 1996 with the following, “obligation to be reasonably informed concerning the corporation, without assuring themselves that information and reporting systems exist in the organization that are reasonably designed to provide to senior management and to the board itself timely, accurate information sufficient to allow management and the board, each within its scope, to reach informed judgments concerning both the corporation’s compliance with law and its business performance.”

Stone v. Ritter

This case involved money laundering and a bank’s failure to report suspicious activity which led to an employee running a Ponzi scheme. The bank in question was fined over $40 million. Once again, the plaintiffs were not successful in their claims. The Stone v. Ritter court approved the Caremark Doctrine and went on to further specify thatCaremark required a “lack of good faith as a “necessary condition to liability”.” It is because the Court was not focusing simply on the results but in the board’s overall conduct “of the fundamental duty of loyalty.” It follows that because a showing of bad faith conduct, “is essential to establish director oversight liability, the fiduciary duty violated by that conduct is the duty of loyalty.”

Interestingly, the Court added what it termed as “two additional doctrinal consequences.” First, although good faith is a “part of a “triad” of fiduciary duties that includes the duties of care and loyalty, the obligation to act in good faith does not establish an independent fiduciary duty that stands on the same footing as the duties of care and loyalty.” Violations of the duties of care and loyalty may result in direct liability, whereas a failure to act in good faith may do so, but it would only result in indirect liability. The second consequence is that the “duty of loyalty is not limited to cases involving a financial or other cognizable fiduciary conflict of interest. It also encompasses cases where the fiduciary fails to act in good faith. As the Court of Chancery aptly put it in Guttman, “[a] director cannot act loyally towards the corporation unless she acts in the good faith belief that her actions are in the corporation’s best interest.””

The Stone v. Ritter court ended by further refining the Caremark Doctrine to define the necessary conditions for director liability under Caremark. They are:

  1. Directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls;
  2. If they have implemented such a system or controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention.

In either situation, imposition of liability requires a showing that the directors knew that they were not discharging their fiduciary obligations. Where directors fail to act in the face of a known duty to act, thereby demonstrating a conscious disregard for their responsibilities, they breach their duty of loyalty by failing to discharge that fiduciary obligation in good faith.

As usual, once I get started, I often cannot stop so in my next blog post (or two) I will consider how this has evolved.

Categories
Blog

A Caremark Retrospective: Part I – Background

It is often instructive to look back at old cases which have become so well known for a doctrine that the underlying facts are often forgotten. I did so recently in reading the original Caremark and Stone v. Ritterdecisions. The former decision was released in 1996 and the latter, some ten years later in 2006. They both made interesting reading and the underlying facts could well be drawn from the headlines of anti-corruption and anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement actions today. The original Caremark decision laid the foundation for the modern obligations of Boards of Directors in oversight of compliance in general and a company’s risk management profile in particular. Stone v. Ritter confirmed the ongoing vitality of the originalCaremark decision. Today, in Part 1, we review the underlying facts of the Caremark decision and in Part II, the legal reasoning.

Underlying Facts

In Caremark, the decision involved a company which provided patient care and managed care services and a substantial part of the revenues generated by the company was derived through third party payments, insurers, and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs. Medicare and Medicaid payments were governed under the Anti-Referral Payments Law (“ARPL”) which prohibited health care providers (HCPs) from paying any form of remuneration (i.e., kickbacks) to physicians to induce them to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to Caremark products or services.

To try and get around this prescription, Caremark entered various contracts for services (e.g., consultation agreements and research grants) with physicians at least some of whom prescribed or recommended services or products that Caremark provided to Medicare recipients and other patients. Moreover, Caremark had a decentralized governance and operational structure which allowed wide latitude to the business units to enter into such agreements without corporate or any centralized compliance or legal oversight. The results were about what you would expect.

Multiple federal investigations found that from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s, Caremark paid out millions to doctors in forms disguised to evade ARPL liability. Caremark claimed that its payments for consultation, teaching, research grants and other similar evasions did not violate the law. Further, it relied on an audit by Price Waterhouse (PwC) which concluded that there were no material weaknesses in Caremark’s control structure.

In 1993, Caremark formally changed its compliance manual to prohibit such payments, announced this change internally and put on training for this new set of policies. However, there were no attendant controls, monitoring or follow up noted. Indeed, it is not clear if much if anything changed at Caremark, given the decentralized nature of its business model.

Criminal and Civil Charges

In August 1994, Caremark was hit with a 47-page indictment alleging criminal violations of ARPL, specifically including making payments to induce physicians to refer patients to Caremark services and products. The indictment alleged that payments were “in the guise of research grants and others were consulting agreements.” Moreover, the Indictment went on to allege that such payments were made where no consulting services or research performed. (Very 2022 FCPA-ish) One doctor was alleged to have direct payments from Caremark for staff and offices expenses. Multiple shareholder suits were filed against the Board in Delaware and another federal Indictment was handled in Ohio. In addition to the claims in Ohio, new allegations of over billing and inappropriate referral payments made in Georgia and “reported that federal investigators were expanding their inquiry to look at Caremark’s referral practices in Michigan as well as allegations of fraudulent billing of insurers.” Rather amazingly, the company management, when reporting the Indictment to the Board of Directors, maintained the company had done nothing wrong.

Settlements

Of course, the Caremark senior management was not correct, and Caremark was required to pay millions to resolve enforcement actions. An agreement, with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Inspector General (OIG), US Veterans Administration, US Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, federal Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, and related state agencies in all fifty states and the District of Columbia required a Caremark subsidiary to enter a guilty plea to two counts of mail fraud, and required Caremark to pay $29 million in criminal fines, $129.9 million relating to civil claims concerning payment practices, $3.5 million for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act, and $2 million, in the form of a donation, to a grant program set up by the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act. Caremark also agreed to enter into a compliance agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In addition to all these entities, Caremark was also sued by several private insurance company payors (“Private Payors”), who alleged that Caremark was liable for damages to them for allegedly improper business practices related to those at issue in the OIG investigation. As a result of negotiations with the Private Payors the Caremark Board of Directors approved a $98.5 million settlement agreement with the Private Payors in 1996.

In addition to the financial penalties, Caremark finally agreed to institute a full compliance program. It created the position of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and created a Board level Compliance and Ethics Committee who, with the assistance of outside counsel, was tasked with reviewing existing contracts and advanced approval of any new contract forms.

Join us for our next piece where we consider the court holdings and rationales in Caremark and Stone v. Ritter.