DawkinsDaryl Dawkins died yesterday. To anyone who followed the National Basketball League (NBA); Dawkins will always be remembered with the brilliant Stevie Wonder-derived moniker – Chocolate Thunder. I will also remember him for three things. First he was one of the very rare high school stars who went straight to the NBA with no college stop and was successful. The second was when he squared off to fight Maurice Lucas of the Portland Trailblazers during the 1977 NBA finals. Let’s just say Dawkins slaps at Lucas did not come close to hitting their mark. Number 3 was his thundering dunks, particularly one in a game against the Kansas City Kings at Kemper Arena on November 11, 1979, Dawkins threw down such a massive dunk that the backboard shattered. Then three weeks later he did it again.

As noted Dawkins was one of a very few high schoolers to NBAers who did even passably well. His contemporary Bill (Pugh) Willoughby had some success with Atlanta and, of course, Moses Malone had a Hall of Fame career, later taking those now Dawkins-less Philadelphia 76ers to the NBA promised land in 1983. I thought about Dawkins and his lack of college seasoning while reading the absolutely disgusting story of Art Briles, the University of Baylor, its football team and the saga of Sam Ukwuachu.

Jessica Luther and Dan Solomon have been following this sorry spectacle. In an article in Texas Monthly, entitled “Silence at Baylor”, they wrote, “That Ukwuachu transferred to Baylor in May 2013 because he had been kicked off the Boise State team for a previous incident of violence involving a female student; that Ukwuachu claimed after the transfer was announced that Baylor’s coaches “knew everything” about what happened in Idaho; and, as indicated by court documents obtained by Texas Monthly, the two programs had some communication regarding Ukwuachu in which Boise State officials expressed reticence about supporting the player’s efforts to get back on the field.”

Art Briles, the Baylor head football coach, claimed that he was never informed from anyone at Boise State about Ukwuachu’s prior incident, even implying they had covered it up. Yet Chris Petersen, then head coach at Boise State and now head coach at the University of Washington, said he had fully disclosed to Briles the details about Ukwuachu. Petersen said in a statement, ““After Sam Ukwuachu was dismissed from the Boise State football program and expressed an interest in transferring to Baylor, I initiated a call with coach Art Briles,” Petersen said. “In that conversation, I thoroughly apprised Coach Briles of the circumstances surrounding Sam’s disciplinary record and dismissal.” It is known that Boise State did not support any waiver that would have allowed Ukwuachu to play immediately for Baylor upon his transfer. In the fall of 2014 Ukwuachu sexually assaulted a female soccer player. Ukwuachu was indicted and convicted this month of second-degree sexual assault. His sentence – 180 days in jail and 10 years probation.

Briles and Baylor have claimed they are really the aggrieved party here because if Coach Petersen or anyone at Boise State had told them that Ukwuachu had been disciplined or dismissed from the Boise State team for sexual assault they would never have given him a full scholarship to Baylor. This means Briles and Baylor would have simply ignored the football facts that Ukwuachu was a Freshman All-American and highly recruited high school athlete. Indeed in early June of this year, Baylor defensive coordinator Phil Bennett said at a luncheon in Fort Worth for the Baylor Sports Network, that he expected Ukwuachu to play this year. This was in the face of a trial scheduled to begin some two months later.

All of this was overlaid by a university which, if not trying to suppress all this news about Ukwuachu, certainly did nothing to alert its student body that a scholarship athlete was on trial for sexual assault. Moreover, according to Luther and Solomon in Texas Monthly, “Meanwhile, the details about the investigation conducted by Baylor that came out during the trial reveal one that was shockingly brief: It involved reading text messages, looking at a polygraph test Ukwuachu had independently commissioned – which is rarely admissible in court – and contacting Ukwuachu, Doe, and one witness on behalf of each of them.”

I thought about all this sorry state of affairs at Baylor in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and anti-corruption compliance programs. There is a clear reason why the responsibility should be on any company which wants to employ a third party to act on its behalf to do thorough due diligence on that agent. If this was not the situation, companies would make claims similar to those made by Baylor Coach Briles that “no one told me about Ukwuachu.” If Briles had accepted his responsibility for bringing a player into the university and onto his team, he might have understood the importance of knowing who you are dealing with going forward.

It is incumbent that a company evaluates and addresses its risks regarding third parties. This means that an appropriate level of due diligence may vary depending on the risks arising from the particular relationship. So, for example, the appropriate level of due diligence required by a company when contracting for the performance of Information Technology (IT) services may be low, to reflect low risks of bribery on its behalf. Conversely, a business entering into the international energy market and selecting an intermediary to assist in establishing a business in such markets will typically require a much higher level of due diligence to mitigate the risks of bribery on its behalf.

Our British compliance cousins of course are subject to the UK Bribery Act. In its Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance program, the UK Ministry of Justice (MOJ) stated, “The commercial organisation applies due diligence procedures, taking a proportionate and risk based approach, in respect of persons who perform or will perform services for or on behalf of the organisation, in order to mitigate identified bribery risks.” The purpose of this principle is to encourage businesses to put in place due diligence procedures that adequately inform the application of proportionate measures designed to prevent persons associated with a company from bribing on their behalf. The MOJ recognized that due diligence procedures act both as a procedure for anti-bribery risk assessment and as a risk mitigation technique. The MOJ said that due diligence is so important that “the role of due diligence in bribery risk mitigation justifies its inclusion here as a Principle in its own right.”

The onus put on companies too not only do compliance but to ‘Document, Document, and Document’ that effort provides the incentive needed to comply with the law. If there was not such an incentive, you have would have corporations crying out now like Baylor Coach Briles that it was the responsibility of the school and team which dismissed him to alert them about Ukwuachu’s past misdeeds. Fortunately for FCPA compliance and the greater anti-corruption compliance community, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) do not see things in such a light.

As to Chocolate Thunder, at one point in his career Dawkins said that he was an alien from the Planet Lovetron. Alien or human, I hope you will join me in wishing a smooth trip to the great hereafter to one of the NBA’s most unique characters.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

HeroSometimes a hero can make a difference. But you do not have to be a John Wayne type-hero to make such a difference. The reason is the world is made up of real people and John Wayne heroes only exist in the movies. Even in the international fight against bribery and corruption, the stand of one person can make a difference. It could be as simple as saying “I am not going to pay bribes.” Yesterday I read two articles in the New York Times (NYT) which illustrate how regular people and their non-Hollywood regular actions can make a difference in the fight against corruption.

Earlier this week, a true hero died near Brussels. According to her NYT Obituary, Augusta Chiwy was a “Belgian nurse whose unsung bravery in saving countless American soldiers wounded in the Battle of the Bulge was belatedly celebrated in 2011.” A British historian named Martin King had found the amazing story of a Belgian immigrant, who was visiting her family in Bastogne when the Germans attacked in December 1944, an Army doctor named John Prior, “knocked on the door of her father’s house. “He told me that he had no one left, that his ambulance driver had been killed,” she recalled. She volunteered, along with a friend, Renee Lemaire, even trading her bloodstained clothes for an Army uniform, which would have subjected her to death if she were captured.”

Yet through her efforts, along with those of her friend Ms. Lemaire and those of Dr. Prior who all working on triage during the entire siege, “Men lived and families were reunited due to your efforts,” said Col. Joseph McGee, who commanded a brigade of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., the unit whose paratroopers were surrounded during the fierce midwinter siege.” Dr. Prior noted, in a 1972 article for The Onondaga County Medical Society Bulletin, “The presence of these two girls was a morale factor of the highest order.” Chiwy’s only comment was “What I did was very normal. I would have done it for anyone. We are all children of God.” Heroism indeed.

Yet there is another kind of heroism also portrayed in yesterday’s NYT. It was the heroism of the citizens of Guatemala as detailed in an article by Azam Ahmed, entitled “Guatemala’s Corruption Investigations Make Swift Strides”. The heroism was demonstrated by “Jorge Castiglione, a 70-year-old engineer with a thinning ponytail, has gone to the Plaza de la Constitución here to support what has become a ritual in this nation: weekly protests calling for the resignation of the president and an end to political impunity.”

For while no one, certainly not the citizens of the country, thought that they could see the possible end of corruption, a small step was taken in the name of anti-corruption last week when an investigation extended to the top levels of the country’s government. Ahmed reported, “On Friday, the nation’s former vice president was arrested, and prosecutors claimed that the president, Otto Pérez Molina, was the chief beneficiary of a fraud ring that siphoned millions of dollars in customs revenues while basic public services suffered.”

Most interestingly the investigation began over a case which, under US law, might well have fallen within the rubric of facilitation payments under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Ahmed said, “The initial case, known as La Línea, involved customs stations across the country taking bribes from importers to reduce the amount of duties paid. More than 20 top officials were arrested in a scheme that prosecutors said drew in a quarter of a million dollars a week, the same scheme they accuse Mr. Pérez Molina of leading.” However that was only the beginning of the rotten leaves unturned in the investigation. Ahmed wrote, “another scandal emerged. This time, the authorities were accused of skimming millions off a contract meant to provide dialysis treatment for patients with kidney problems, among other things. Local papers reported that more than 13 patients died as a result of negligent treatment, connecting the corruption to actual lives.”

There are many in the US, from The Donald on down, who seem to think that corruption is simply a part of the way those people do business. The problem with that analysis is at least twofold. First it does not even consider the invidious nature of corruption. This view holds that it is really just a victimless crime or better yet, simply another way to get ahead – cheat your way to the top. Or the converse, only losers don’t pay bribes to get favors in return. The second problem is that if US companies buy into such logic, they not only feed the narrative but become part of the problem as well. Just think of the Lockheed and other US corporate corruption scandals that led to the original passage of the FCPA.

Nonetheless for US companies these developments in Guatemala should serve as a very large wake-up call for their Central and South American operations, if, indeed, they needed one. Obviously Petrobras is on everyone’s mind now as the world’s current top poster child for bribery and corruption. For US companies, this means that their Brazilian operations could come into Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) scrutiny. The increased in anti-corruption scrutiny has moved part and parcel with increased political activism by citizens such as Jorge Castiglione in Guatemala. Ahmed noted, “A wave of political activism has emerged in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras and Peru. Feeding the swell of discontent, experts say, is a growing middle class with greater expectations.” It is also clear that corruption is a large problem in many of these countries as well.

This confluence of factors that were present in Guatemala; the newly aggressive anti-corruption investigations coupled with the increase in political protests mirror those which occurred in Brazil over the past couple of years and may become more prevalent in other countries in the region. US companies need to understand that many of these most ardent anti-corruption prosecutors and investigators have had legal or other training the US. Further, the DOJ has for a number of years been training prosecutors in other countries on techniques to investigate and combat corruption. Once again witness the well-known Brazilian prosecutors from Operation Car Wash; they had US legal training. It would not be surprising at all if they are sharing their information with the relevant US authorities.

Of course, US companies could take the direct route and simply not pay bribes and not violate the FCPA. But doing compliance takes a corporate will, requiring commitment and work. If you do not have such commitment, you may find yourself in FCPA hot water in areas of the world waking up to the fact that they can actually fight bribery and corruption. Sometimes it only takes a hero to make the difference.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Marichal.Roseboro FightOne of the strangest incidents in the history of Major League Baseball (MLB) recently had its 50 anniversary. It involved a brawl between Hall Of Fame pitcher Juan Marichal and catcher John Roseboro. The game was between the then (and still) heated rivals San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers. During the game, Marichal apparently took exception to Roseboro returning the ball to his pitcher by whizzing the ball back behind Marichal’s head. Words were exchanged and the next thing anyone knew, Marichal was beating Roseboro over the head with his baseball bat. Dodger starting pitcher Sandy Kofax and others helped to break up the fight and Roseboro walked off the field bloodied but unbowed. Marichal was suspended for two critical weeks of a pennant race.

I thought about this brawl between rivals when pondering the recent spate of articles about Amazon and its culture, beginning with the New York Times (NYT) exposure of white-collar work life at the company. The manner in which the company treats its warehouse and blue-collar workers had been, sadly, well documented earlier. Lucy Kellaway, writing in her On Work column in the Financial Times (FT), in an article entitled “Amazon is at the head of an outbreak of good sense”, said that “For years we’ve known (thanks to an article in the FT) that the retailer is mean to its warehouse workers. Now we know that its hard on its office workers, too.”

The NYT treatment spoke of brutally long work weeks, a rating system designed to cull out the those deemed to not be working hard enough, an anonymous reporting system which allows employees to report on those not living up to the Amazon way. Amazon’s culture is certainly a very driven one. Jeff Bezos has long done things his way and has not worried too much about what Wall Street or anyone else thinks. The NYT piece and resulting fallout do have certain aspects that are of interest to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or similarly situated anti-corruption compliance practitioner.

First, a word about long hours. For anyone who has ever been an associate at a law firm of any size, or an investment banker, reading that someone else works 75 to 80 hours per week does not illicit much more than a stifled yawn. The reality of today’s workplace is that it does not matter what time of day or night it is; if you are white collar you are on the clock. At one organization where I worked, the joke was management would really, really, really try and give you Saturday off; unless of course they had a question because, of course, they were working so you might as well be there at their beck and call. Overlay that attitude with a worldwide enterprise and you then have folks calling at all hours of the day or night as I did when I (somewhat sheepishly) discovered that New Zealand is not on the same time zone as Perth, Australia.

But beyond these long working hours and turning employees into full-fledged Amazonians (good) or Ambots/Amholes (bad), Kellaway finds Amazon’s intense culture a refreshing bit of honesty. It is honest in that Amazon does not really care about its employees feelings or how hard they drive them. She wrote, “The lesson from Amazon blows away one of the biggest lies of management. The stakeholder model pretends you can have it all – customers, shareholders and employees can all do well at the same time…At Amazon, the customer wins – and the employee does not.”

Matt Kelly, writing in his Compliance Week The Big Picture column, in an article entitled “Amazon, Data, and Selling Your Culture Down the River”, has a different take on the Amazon saga. Kelly does not address the long hours but instead goes after the culling system for getting rid of employees and the anonymous reporting structure. Kelly wrote that Amazon, “looks like a miserable place to work. A rank-and-yank system of performance reviews that pits one employee against another. An employee feedback system that generates anonymous personnel tension far more than it roots out legitimate misconduct. A culture so obsessed with data that executives turn a blind eye to context, which breeds ever more fear of failure into an overworked and exhausted workforce.”

Yet Kelly’s main focus is on Amazon’s use of data driven analytics as the be all and end all. One Amazonian said in response to the NYT article that data is liberating and data provides clarity. Yes it does but it is only a tool to be used by humans in evaluation. In an anti-corruption compliance program, data can be predictive and useful as a preventative tool. However it should not be used to “abdicate responsibility for making a difficult choice. Having information at your fingertips can help inform the choices you make, certainly; that’s wise management. A slavish devotion to data, however – which seems to be what Amazon exalts above all – removes the need to choose.”

Moreover, the use, or perhaps miss-use, of the Amazon anonymous reporting system also troubles Kelly. He writes, “Amazon also tries to embrace a speak-up culture, with online tools that let employees provide anonymous feedback on peers and meetings where executives are required to debate and find flaws in others’ ideas. The tools themselves are only tools, harmless unless someone uses them maliciously. Rigorous debate at meetings is also harmless – it’s praiseworthy, actually – so long as people on the losing side of the debate aren’t punished for trying. But people on the losing side are punished when a data-obsessed culture boils away all factors and only see the failure. Anonymous reporting tools are used as weapons when data determines your fate.”

In her penultimate line Kellaway said, “The company may not have chosen the most morally acceptable trade-off.” Kelly takes this thought a step further by noting “It’s a rich irony: Amazon’s tools to deliver a better culture become the vehicles employees use to create a worse culture.” Does a company have an ethical duty to make morally unacceptable trade-offs for its employees? In Houston the answer would be just be thankful you have a job while the somewhat more palatable Bezos intoned you don’t have to work at Amazon.

Whichever answer it is, the issue for the compliance practitioner will be one of credibility and trust going forward. Will miserable workers cut corners to meet their performance metrics? What about reporting incidents? Perhaps perversely if your reporting system is used against rivals in a corporation, there might be more reporting of real incidents but I somehow doubt it. But I do know that if there is not trust in an organization, there will be no significant negative information brought forward because employees will fear that information will be used against them in retaliatory manner.

 

Eventually Juan Marichal had enough and took a bat to John Roseboro’s head. Let’s hope it does not come to that in the data obsessed workplace.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Social Media 5-IconsTo conclude this week’s posts, I wanted to list some of the more prevalent social media tools, explain what they are and how you might use them in a compliance program. (As usual I got carried away so this series will conclude on Monday of next week.) You need to remember that your compliance customer base are your employees. The younger the work force, the more tech savvy they will be and the more adapted to communicating through social media. According to Social Media Examiner’s 2015 Social Media Marketing Industry Report, the top two social networks for marketing are Facebook and LinkedIn. The three social media tools that hold the top spot for social media planning are LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter. Marketers report that video streaming is becoming increasingly important tools for markets and that is currently encompassed in Meerkat and Periscope. Finally, I would add that Pinterest is another hot social media app.

Facebook

If you do not know what Facebook is at this point, you may have just transported down from a Borg Cube or perhaps you are a Vulcan looking for First Contact. This is the world’s most ubiquitous social media tool. It combines both personal and business applications. For the compliance practitioner, think about the business uses of Facebook. You can open a Facebook page for your compliance function and share an unlimited amount of information. Equally importantly, you can be responsive when employees comment on your posts, it allows you to interact with them and demonstrate that compliance is listening and responsive. The more regularly you post, the more opportunity you have for connecting with your employee base and building trust.

YouTube 

Much like Facebook, YouTube is one of the most ubiquitous social media tools around. It allows you to upload video and audio recordings for unlimited play. For the compliance practitioner, why not consider creating a YouTube channel for your company’s compliance program. You can put together full training on specific issues or you can create short videos. For an example of short videos, you can check out the training videos I have on my website Advanced Compliance Solutions. If there is any information that you wish to put into a visual format, YouTube is one of the best solutions available to you.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn is almost as ubiquitous as Facebook and YouTube. As with Facebook, you can set up a business site or even a private compliance group for your organization. Your employees are the best place to start adding followers, as they are not only your target audience but they are also your biggest advocates. You can encourage employees to add their compliance profile to their personal profiles. By doing so, they automatically become followers and can like, comment on, and share your company updates to help expand your viral reach. As with Facebook, LinkedIn provides you a platform to communicate with your employee base. It has a chat function that can be used to solicit feedback and comments going forward. You can also tie in with or ‘link to’ other groups and people that can facilitate not only creating but also expanding your culture of compliance.

Twitter

Earlier this week, I wrote about how you can use Twitter to capture information from the marketplace of ideas. However Twitter can also be used for communicating with your employee base. Tweets are publicly visible by default, but senders can restrict message delivery to just their followers. Users can tweet via the Twitter website, compatible external applications or by Short Message Service (SMS) available in certain countries. Retweeting is when users forward a tweet via Twitter. Both tweets and retweets can be tracked to see which ones are most popular. Finally, through the use of hashtags (#) users can group posts to Twitter together by topic.

I believe that Twitter is one of the most powerful tools (and completely underused tools) that is available to the compliance function. If employees follow their company’s name through a hashtag, they can see what trending topics other employees are discussing. Compliance practitioners can help lead that internal discussion through the same technique. Moreover, if the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance function regularly monitors Twitter they can keep abreast of any communications and those can be used as a backup communication channel, in case the company hotline or other reporting system is not immediately available or even convenient.

Meerkat and Periscope

Two of the newest and perhaps coolest tools a CCO or compliance practitioner can utilize in the realm of social media are Meerkat and Periscope. Both tools allow you to tell a compliance story in real time, throughout your organization and beyond through the capture and broadcast of video, live through your smartphone. They are both live streaming apps that enable you to create a video and open the portal to anyone who wants to use it. Anybody in your Twitter community can click on that link and watch whatever you’re showing on your phone. The big piece is the mobile aspect. It is as simple as a basic tweet and hitting the “stream” button.

This is one of the more exciting new social media tools I see for the compliance practitioner. You could start a compliance campaign along the lines a campaign that the company Hootsuite initiated called “Follow the Sun” using Periscope. They decided to let their employees showcase what they called #HootsuiteLife. They gave access to different people in every company office around the globe. Throughout the day, it would “Follow the Sun,” and people in different offices would log into the Hootsuite account and walk around and show off their culture, interviewing their friends, etc. They talk about the importance of culture and now they are proving it. The number of inbound applications drastically increased after people got that sneak peek into their company. You could do the same for your worldwide compliance team.

You can live stream video training around the globe. Moreover, if you use either of these tools in conjunction with internal podcasting or other messaging you can create those all important “Compliance Reminders” which were so prominently mentioned in the Morgan Stanley Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Declination. The videos that you create with both of these tools can be saved and stored so a record of what you have created can be documented going forward.

Pinterest

According to Pinterest for Dummies, this tool is an online bulletin board, a visual take on the social bookmarking site, where the content shared is driven entirely by visuals. In fact, you cannot share something on Pinterest unless an image is involved. When you share something on Pinterest, each bookmark is called a pin. When you share someone else’s pin, it’s called a repin. Your group pins together by topic onto various boards, aka pinboards, in your profile. Each board mimics a real-life pinboard. You can share images you find online, or you can directly upload images. Using the “Pin It” button, you can share directly in your browser from any web page. You can also share your pins on Twitter and Facebook.

Although a relatively new social media tool, I find it to be one of the more interesting ones for use by the compliance function as it compliments many of the other tools I discussed above. You can set up your compliance account for your organization and pin items, lists, or other visual information that can be viewed and used by employees. In addition to the enumerated items, you can pin such things as a link, a website, graphics or other forms of information. If you think of it as an online bulletin board, you can consider all of the compliance information that you can post for your customer base and the interactions they can have back with you.

All of these tools can help you as CCO or a compliance practitioner to engage with your customer base. On Monday, I will conclude with some final thoughts on why the compliance function should use social media tools available to them.

Once again please remember that I am compiling a list of questions that you would like to be explored or answered on the use of social media in your compliance program. So if you have any questions email them to me, at tfox@tfoxlaw.com, and I will answer them within the next couple of weeks in my next Mailbag Episode on my podcast, the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report.

 

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

 

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015