The top compliance roundtable podcast is back with a wrap up of the some of the top compliance stories over the first quarter of 2018. Stayed tuned to the end for rants in this edition.
- Matt Kelly considers the moves by the Congress to amend Dodd-Frank, considering the approaches by both the House and the Senate. He explores a couple of interesting side notes. First the Senate bill requires the Department of Treasury consider cybersecurity risks. Second, he notes the lack of movement against the Consumer Financial Protection Board. He also considers the Trump Administration’s claim of regulatory reduction; exploring my question: Is it real or is it Memorex? Matt rants on the manner of the firing of the Secretary of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs.
- Mike Volkov considers the recent pronouncements by the Justice Department that it may extend the reach of the declination program first laid out in the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. Would such an approach work for other laws? If so, which ones are likely candidates? Is this a sop to big business or is there something else going on? What might be the reaction of the Congress? Mike rants on the corruption and conflicts of interest present in the current Administration.
- Jonathan Armstrong considers the Facebook/Compliance Analytica imbroglio from the UK/EU angle. He discusses where the EU and UK investigations currently lie, what the potential penalties might be, including criminal sanctions and next steps for all involved. It turns out the EU has been investigating Cambridge Analytica for over one year. Armstrong gives a shout out to the SCCE European Compliance and Ethics Institute and rants on travels who still don’t know to bag their liquids and take their shoes off at security in airports.
- Jay Rosen considers the current state of monitorships. He begins with a review of monitorships over the past few years to explore whether the Justice Department and SEC cutting back on their use? If so, what are the implications for enforcement and compliance going forward? What are some of the tangible steps a company can take to make the case they do not need a monitor even after a FCPA violation? Jay explains remediation through a proactive monitorship can be a key step. Jay gives a shout out to the state Attorney’s Generals who brought the Emolument Lawsuit against the President.
I take the opportunity to give a Happy Trails shout out to one of my boyhood heroes; Rusty Staub who recently passed away and rant on the New York Times for waiting almost a full week before running an Obituary on Phillp Kerr.
The members of the Everything Compliance panel include:
- 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 email@example.com.
- Matt Kelly – Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance, is the former Editor of Compliance Week. Kelly can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
- Jonathan Armstrong – Rounding out the panel is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at email@example.com