7K0A0223This week I have been exploring the Public Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) with Joe Howell, an Executive Vice President (EVP) with Workiva Inc. We have considered how some of the issues addressed by the PCAOB directly impact the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance practitioner in ways that might not seem immediately self-evident. Today I will conclude my series with Howell by considering some of the costs for the failure of internal controls and how auditors, governed by the PCAOB, can help foster and facilitate a best practices compliance program.

There is no materiality standard under the FCPA. This is generally a different standard than internal auditors or accountants consider in a company. However Howell believes their approach is wrong based upon simply more than just a plain reading of the statute itself. This is because Howell feels it is not simply the materiality of the bribe, it may not even be the materiality of the contract that you receive because of the bribe. Howell’s view is that it is much broader as the materiality would be the entire cost that potentially the company could be liable for: pre-resolution investigation, an enforcement penalty and fine, and then post-settlement remediation or other costs.

Howell began by noting that a company must report contingent liabilities in its financial statements, if only in notes. Even if a company cannot estimate these costs, they must be described. A financial statement would be incomplete and actually wrong if they fail to describe a liability when you know that you have one. This means “If a company discovers that a bribe was paid and a fraud was perpetrated and that money was used to pay a bribe, they now know that they have some sort of liability, a cost that they’re going to have to recognize at some point, but they don’t know how much it is yet.”

Howell acknowledges there can be many reasons why a corporation would not want to put such a disclosure on the face of its financial statements; nevertheless, they do need to describe it in the financial statements in order to actually give the reader of the financial information the full picture that they are required to provide.

Any FCPA investigation is going to have a profound cost. If a company desires to take advantage of the new Department of Justice (DOJ) Pilot Program and self-disclose to the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it still may result in a risk of a fine, disgorgement of profits and other penalties. Howell added, “then monitoring at the backend and penalties and reputational risk. All of which go together to be material to the company. Even though the bribe was a little bribe, even though the fuse was a small fuse, the bomb is a big bomb. When you see a fuse, notice that it’s been lit, you have an obligation to report that. That’s material. It’s relevant to the reader of the financial statements. Because the fuse is small, you can’t say, I don’t have to report it.”

In an interesting insight for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner to consider, Howell said that even if you remediate but make the decision not to self-disclose that alone may be evidence that your books and records are not accurate. Take a minute to consider that from the SEC perspective. If your SOX 404 disclosure does not reflect any reportable FCPA incidents because you have remediated and made the decision not to self-disclose, that alone can be a violation of the FCPA.

While Howell believes that such contingencies will resolve themselves over time, he believes it is important to make that immediately available to readers of the financial statements. He went on to state that there are large numbers of diverse constituencies who depend on your accurate financial statements. These include, “your bankers, creditors, as well as your shareholders. You may have relationships that are contractual relationships with suppliers, customers that could be affected by this. You may have contracts with your employees that are affected by this. There may be contracts with other third parties that could be affected or impaired because of your violation of the FCPA, in one instance.”

I was intrigued by Howell’s inclusion of bankers and creditors relying on the accuracy of your financial statements. This is because it is not uncommon now that a loan document or a secondary financing would require a company to maintain an effective anti-bribery, corruption compliance program. I asked Howell if this is something an external auditor would evaluate and, if so, how would they go about evaluating such a loan covenant?

Howell said this could well be important because if such a loan clause were violated, that would be part of the corporate disclosure. Howell went on to note that if an auditor were to become aware that a fraud was “committed and that fraud resulted in resources being used to pay a bribe, the auditor then needs to take a hard look at all the disclosures about the contingencies. If they’re uncomfortable with that, they need to report themselves about what they think that the client may have missed. When fraud is discovered, they cannot keep silent. They have to report it.”

I concluded by asking Howell about the SEC Audit Standard No. 5: what it is and how it ties into the FCPA and the line through SOX all the way to Dodd-Frank. Howell said the precursor to Audit Standard No. 5 was Audit Standard No. 2 which specified what Howell called a bunch of ““thou shalt do” stuff that became very mechanical and it drove people’s costs up and it made people uncomfortable.”

This led to the adoption of Audit Standard No. 5 and a change to a more risk based focus using a principles-based audit standard. The SEC wanted to direct “auditors to those areas that present the highest risk, such as financial statement, closed processes, and controls designed to prevent fraud by management. It emphasizes that the auditor is not required to scope the audit to find deficiencies that don’t constitute material weaknesses.”

Howell believes that bribery and corruption are subsets of fraud and auditors are “required to always disclose fraud, even if it’s immaterial. If they find fraud, and even if the fraud is immaterial, it still means that it could be a failure in the controlled environment that means that they can no longer really rely on those controls. They have to do something else. What they would do is substantive testing, which that means then they would go back and start to look at everything. That’s prohibitively expensive. It takes an enormous amount of time and it results in audits that are not sustainable.”

This means one can then draw even a line to Audit Standard No. 5 and the risks that companies have doing business outside of the US under the FCPA as a risk that needs to be audited. Howell said this means you have to incorporate such an analysis into your FCPA compliance program because if you are doing business in high-risk countries which have a reputation for bribery as a way of doing business and you have operations there that rely on third parties that are securing contracts for you, you have an obligation to build a controlled environment which both prevents, to the best of your ability, mistakes from happening, bribes, and then if one were to happen, to be on the lookout for where that would most certainly and most likely show up.

Howell said this could be a variety of responses, including “transaction monitoring, surprise counts, sending in auditors to actually be part of that control environment to look for all the documentation. It is important to also have that sense of remediation. If you find it, what do you do with it? To whom do you report? What processes are in place? Are they working?”

 

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, 2016

Lee and GrantToday we celebrate one of the most momentous anniversary’s in the history of the United States, for it was on this day in 1865, 150 years ago, that Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Union Commanding General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the American Civil War. Fighting continued for several more weeks to come, however with Lee’s surrender the Civil War had, in all intents and purposes, ended.

Lee and his troops were forced to abandon the Confederate capital of Richmond, they were blocked from joining the surviving Confederate force in North Carolina, and were harassed and outrun by Union cavalry, who took 6,000 prisoners at Sayler’s Creek. With desertions mounting daily the Confederates were surrounded with no possibility of escape. On April 9, Lee sent a message to Grant announcing his willingness to surrender and in the afternoon they met at the home of Wilmer McLean and agreed to the terms of surrender.

Although politicians would later change these terms quite dramatically, Grant is said to have told his officers, “The war is over. The Rebels are our countrymen again.”

Later this month, from April 28-30, Hanson Wade is putting on its annual conference in Houston. It is the “Oil and Gas Supply Chain Compliance” conference, now in its 5th year, and once again the list of speakers is simply stunning. It includes the following Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and senior compliance folks: Dan Chapman, Cameron; Brian Moffatt, Ethos Energy, Jay Martin, Baker Hughes; Marcel De Chermont, Acteon Group, Jan Farley, Dresser-Rand; John Sardar, Noble Energy and a host of other luminaries in the field of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance. Even if you live outside of Houston, the FCPA compliance talent at this event will rival any other event in the US and for such an event not held in Washington DC or New York City, it is simply outstanding.

Some of the panels and topics for discussion include: Applying Culturally Sensitive Approaches To Deliver A Core Compliance Methodology For A Variety Of Countries And Risks; How to Meaningfully Engage Your Business Operations in Taking Greater Compliance Ownership; Avoid The Risk Of Cavalier Behaviour Across The Supply Chain In The Face Of A Challenging Economic Climate; How To Deliver Cost-Effective, Risk Based, Function Specific Compliance Training; several in-depth presentations on Supply Chain and Third Party due diligence. These are but some of the sessions and there are many other excellent panels, sessions and speakers which I have not mentioned.

Recently the Event’s Chairperson, Dan Chapman, Vice President, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Cameron, talked about some of the issues that will be discussed in this year’s conference. Chapman said, “Supply chain is, in my mind, a critical part of compliance and creating awareness throughout the business as to when and where you should apply compliance principles is a key focus. For me the industry has evolved in recent years, and our organizations tend to now have strong legal teams who understand anti-bribery and corruption legislation. Not only this, they now have the ‘tone from the top’. Where I feel that work needs to be done is practically embedding compliance into operational processes, and becoming a true and valuable partner to the business. With the current state of the oil price, we’re likely set for reduced budgets and increased risk, which makes it more important now than ever to share stories, materials and solutions to effectively mitigate compliance risk while enabling business delivery.”

I will be speaking at the conference on internal controls but I am extremely pleased to be co-leading an in-depth workshop on the third day of the event, with Joe Oringel, guest blogger and Managing Director at VisualRisk IQ. In our workshop, you will learn how to implement a system of data-driven monitoring controls and documents to measure the effectiveness of your compliance program and get you through a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. During our 3 hour session we will go into the weeds on the following:

  • Understanding what internal controls are required under a best practices compliance program;
  • Recognizing what FCPA enforcement actions tell us about internal controls in an anti-corruption compliance program;
  • Getting to grips with what the SEC expects you to have in place;
  • Competently documenting the effectiveness of your internal controls;
  • Understanding best practices and a methodology for the use of data analytics in compliance and ethics organization;
  • Prioritizing business and compliance questions that can be answered with analysis of digital data; and
  • Identifying a learning plan and resources to enhance your team’s data analytics expertise

I hope that you can attend this most excellent FCPA conference with the two-day sessions on April 28 and 29 and the workshop day on April 30. Very few FCPA conferences focus on Supply Chain and the information that you will receive at this one will be first rate. Finally, Hanson Wade has allowed me to offer a 20% discount to readers of my blog. You can obtain it by entering the code TFLaw20 when you register online. For the conference brochure and full details regarding the agenda and registration, click here.

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

InvestigationsOne of the great things about writing your own blog is that sometimes you can get going on a subject and just explore it. While I think I might sometimes get carried away when I delve into a topic, I certainly learn much while doing so. This week appears to be such a situation where in studying and researching the GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK); I find that the case has much more to inform the compliance practitioner. So I am going to try and tie together some of the major lessons learned from the GSK Chinese enforcement action for the remainder of the week and present to you how such lessons might assist you in designing, implementing or upgrading a best practices compliance program. Today I want to look at internal controls, auditing and monitoring.

One of the questions that GSK will have to face during the next few years of bribery and corruption investigations is how an allegedly massive bribery and corruption scheme occurred in its Chinese operations? The numbers went upwards of $500MM, which coincidentally was the amount of the fine levied by the Chinese court on GSK. It is not as if the Chinese medical market is not well known for its propensity towards corruption, as prosecutions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) are littered with the names of US companies which came to corruption grief in China. GSK itself seemed to be aware of the corruption risks in China. In a Reuters article, entitled “How GlaxoSmithKline missed red flags in China”, Ben Hirschler reported that the company had “more compliance officers in China than in any country bar the United States”. Further, the company conducted “up to 20 internal audits in China a year, including an extensive 4-month probe earlier in 2013.” GSK even had PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as its outside auditor in China. Nevertheless, he noted, “GSK bosses were blindsided by police allegations of massive corruption involving travel agencies used to funnel bribes to doctors and officials.”

Internal Controls

Where were the appropriate internal controls? You might think that a company as large as GSK and one that had gone through the ringer of a prior Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation resulting in charges for off-label marketing and an attendant Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) might have such controls in place. It was not as if the types of bribery schemes in China were not well known. In an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “Bribery built into the fabric of Chinese healthcare system”, reporters Jamil Anderlini and Tom Mitchell wrote about the ‘nuts and bolts’ of how bribery occurs in the health care industry in China. The authors quoted Shaun Rein, a Shanghai-based consultant and author of “The End of Cheap China”, for the following “This is a systemic problem and foreign pharmaceutical companies are in a conundrum. If they want to grow in China they have to give bribes. It’s not a choice because officials in health ministry, hospital administrators and doctors demand it.”

Their article discussed the two primary methods of paying bribes in China: the direct incentives and indirect incentives method. Anderlini and Mitchell reported, “The 2012 annual reports of half a dozen listed Chinese pharmaceutical companies reveal the companies paid out enormous sums in “sales expenses”, including travel costs and fees for sales meetings, marketing “business development” and “other expenses”. Most of the largest expenses were “travel costs or meeting fees and the expenses of the companies’ sales teams were, in every case, several multiples of the net profits each company earned last year.””

It would be reasonable to expect that internal controls over gifts would be designed to ensure that all gifts satisfy the required criteria, as defined and interpreted in Company policies. It should fall to a Compliance Officer to finalize and approve a definition of permissible and non-permissible gifts, travel and entertainment and internal controls will follow from such definition or criteria set by the company. These criteria would include the amount of the spend, localized down into increased risk such the higher risk recognized in China. Within this context, noted internal controls expert Henry Mixon has suggested the following specific controls. (1) Is the correct level of person approving the payment / reimbursement? (2) Are there specific controls (and signoffs) that the gift had proper business purpose? (3) Are the controls regarding gifts sufficiently preventative, rather than relying on detect controls? (4) If controls are not followed, is that failure detected?

Auditing Lessons Learned

Following Mixon’s point 4 above, what can or should be a company’s response if one country’s gifts, travel and entertainment expenses were kept ‘off the books’? This is where internal audit or outside auditors are critical. Hirschler quoted an un-named source for the following, ““You’d look at invoices and expenses, and it would all look legitimate,” said a senior executive at one top accountancy firm. The problem with fraud – if it is good fraud – is it is well hidden, and when there is collusion high up then it is very difficult to detect.”” Jeremy Gordon, director of China Business Services was quoted as saying “There is a disconnect between the global decision makers and the guys running things on the ground. It’s about initially identifying red flags and then searching for specifics.”

There are legitimate reasons to hold medical conferences, such as to make physicians aware of products and the latest advances in medicine, however, this legitimate purpose can easily be corrupted. Hirschler quoted Paul Gillis, author of the China Accounting Blog, for the following “Travel agencies are used like ATMs in China to distribute out illegal payments. Any company that does not have their internal audit department all over travel agency spending is negligent.” Based on this, GSK’s auditors should have looked more closely on marketing expenses and more particularly, the monies spent on travel agencies. Hirschler wrote, “They [un-named auditing experts] say that one red flag was the number of checks being written to travel agencies for sending doctors to medical conferences, although this may have been blurred by the fact that CME accounts for a huge part of drug industry marketing.”

Another issue for auditing is materiality. If GSK’s internal auditors had not been trained that there is no materiality standard under the FCPA, they may have simply skipped past a large number of payments made that were under a company’s governance procedure for elevated review of expenses. Further, if more than one auditor was involved with more than one travel agency, they may not have been able to connect the dots regarding the totality of payments made to one travel agency.

Ongoing Monitoring

A final lesson learned for today is monitoring. As Stephen Martin often says, many compliance practitioners confuse auditing with monitoring. Monitoring is a commitment to reviewing and detecting compliance programs in real time and then reacting quickly to remediate them. A primary goal of monitoring is to identify and address gaps in your program on a regular and consistent basis. Auditing is a more limited review that targets a specific business component, region, or market sector during a particular timeframe in order to uncover and/or evaluate certain risks.

Here I want to focus on two types of ongoing monitoring. The first is relationship monitoring, performed by companies such Boston-based Catelas, through software products. It was reported in a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, entitled “Glaxo Probes Tactics Used to Market Botox in China”, that internal GSK emails showed the company’s China sales staff were instructed by local managers to use their personal email addresses to discuss marketing strategies related to Botox. The Catelas software imports and analyzes communications data, like email, IM, telephony and SMTP log files from systems such as Microsoft Exchange Servers and Lotus Notes. The software then leverages social network analysis and behavioral science algorithms to analyze this communications data. These interactions are used to uncover and display the networks that exist within companies and between the employees of companies. Additionally, relationships between employees and external parties such as private webmail users, competitors and other parties can be uncovered.

The second type of monitoring is transaction monitoring. Generally speaking, transaction monitoring involves review of large amounts of data. The analysis can be compared against an established norm which is derived either against a businesses’ own standard or an accepted industry standard. If a payment, distribution or other financial payment made is outside an established norm, thus creating a red flag that can be tagged for further investigation.

GSK’s failure in these three areas now seems self-evident. However, the company’s foibles can be useful for the compliance practitioner in assessing where their company might be in these same areas. Moreover, as within any anti-corruption enforcement action, you can bet your bottom dollar that the regulators will be assessing best practices going forward based upon some or all of GSK’s miss-steps going forward.

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, 2014

IMG_1213One of the challenges for any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) is how to influence the conduct and actions in a corporate environment, particularly as compliance is viewed as non-revenue generating and usually does not exist simply to protect the company, which is how the legal department is often viewed. Folks like myself who came into compliance from the legal function tend to think of a top-down approach where compliance is centralized at the corporate officer, usually in the United States. But because the role is very different than that of a General Counsel (GC), a CCO needs to bring another skill set to bear to do his or her job. In a session at the SCCE 2014 Compliance and Ethics Institute, SCCE Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Roy Snell and Jenny O’Brien, CCO at United Health Care, talked about the techniques that a CCO can use to influence decision making in a company in order to do business in compliance and ethically.

Snell began the session with some basic questions about why there are positions such as a CCO and why there is a compliance function within an organization. After all, departments like legal and internal audit have existed in business organizations for up to at least a few hundred years. He posed two questions that I found interesting “Why are we here?” and “What did those who came before us to fail to do?” He listed some of the scandals from the late 90s and early 00s such as Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Adelphia and others where he believed that the problems, which led to the disintegration of these organizations, were well known within the companies themselves. So the situation was not that people did not find the problems, the issue was that the people inside these organizations did not fix the problems. Snell believed that the persons who could and would have stood up to raise questions or say this should stop lacked some skill or ability to influence others to make the right decision. He concluded that such business and ethical collapses were a failure of influence.

This led into his presentation with O’Brien about techniques for a CCO to employ to help influence decision-making within an organization. They labeled them as the “Seven Steps of Influence” and they are as follows:

  1. Collaboration. O’Brien emphasized that as a CCO you need to know your company’s business. If you are new to an organization she said you must take time to learn the business. You should sit in on sales meetings and, when appropriate, you should go out on sales call. Channeling her inner Atticus Finch, she characterized this as walking in the shoes of the business leaders you are assisting. By doing so, you will not only understand the products and services that your company offers but also the challenges that your business development team will face out in the world.
  2. Here O’Brien emphasized that she has to work constantly at active listening, which is listening, thinking and then speaking, and not just jump into the middle of a conversation, talk to people in a manner that will address their concerns. When you do speak you should be prepared to make the case for the compliance proposition that you are trying to get across. She noted that as a CCO or compliance practitioner, you should strive to be relevant in every interaction you have with your senior management peers. O’Brien said that sometimes it means speaking up at meetings or other forums but sometimes it means listening. You should try to develop a rapport with your business team and this rapport can lead to trust building.
  3. Relationships. Snell opened his remarks on this topic by intoning that by relationships he did not mean inter-personal relationships. He believes that it is mainly through relationships with other functions in an organization that a CCO or compliance practitioner can best bring influence to bear. It all begins with building trust with others within your organization. Invest time to find others in your organization that you want to work and with those with whom you desire to build relationships. Snell believes that some of the more key relationships that a CCO or compliance practitioner can develop are with the audit function, the legal department, Human Resources, IT and corporate communications. Snell said that when one of these groups offered to help him move the ball forward in compliance he always viewed it as a positive and wanted to work with these and other corporate groups. He did not view it as a turf war at all. The only thing that he said he requested were the terms of working together. Of those, he said the most important was that if another group in the company took on some project related to compliance, such an internal audit, that the group finish whatever they take on.
  4. Humility. O’Brien believes that humility is important because it empowers. Moreover, it can empower others to expand the circle of influence and get others in a corporation to influence an ever-expanding circle on behalf of compliance. The CCO does not need center stage. She reiterated her belief that business units should solve compliance issues, as compliance is really just another business process. Further, through such influence where you can get the business unit resources to solve a compliance problem, you will hold down the costs of the compliance function. She ended by noting that it is not about being right but about moving the compliance ball forward in the right direction.
  5. Negotiation. Here Snell said that negotiation should not be about the dichotomy of winning and losing an argument or debate. A CCO should strive to redefine what a win might look like or what a win might consist of for a business unit employee. He said that when faced with such a confrontation, he would try to determine what both sides wanted then give them something else in addition to what they thought they wanted. He provided the example of a CCO quietly listening and when the room is just right and all the participants are worn out, you, as the compliance practitioner, throw out an idea where the apparent loser in the argument receives even more than they thought they were asking for in the requesting. A CCO can be considered a mediator not just simply an enforcer or Dr. No from the Land of No. He ended by saying that as a compliance practitioner you need to learn the art of compromise.
  6. Triple ‘C’. What do the three C’s stand for? Calm, cool and collected. O’Brien believes that all company employees, up and down the chain, are watching the CCO. For this reason, she said that as a compliance practitioner you should be poker faced. To this end she keeps the sign “Keep Calm and Carry On” in her office. She believes that the Triple C’s are important because organizations look to the CCO to solve complex issues with simple solutions. When faced with a compliance issue or an obstacle you should endeavor to keep everything on an even keel and never let them see you sweat.
  7. Credibility. The final of the seven pillars was that the CCO role needs to be adequately scoped and that the accountabilities need to be clearly defined. Put another way, what is your job scope as the CCO and what is the function of the compliance department? What is your accountability to decide the resolution to an issue? Snell agreed with O’Brien that there should be business unit ownership for every issue that comes into the compliance department. Yet, as a CCO, you must demonstrate your value as a non-revenue function. This may require you to get out of your office and put on a PR campaign for compliance. Finally, Snell ended by saying that a CCO needs to guard their independence in job function and reporting. You must make clear that you will have independent reporting up to the Board or Audit Committee of the Board.

Snell concluded by reminding us all that influencing is not a one-time activity. It is ongoing. Tying back to his original question of why the compliance function exists in the quantum it does today, he said that he believes a CCO or compliance practitioner exists to help influence a company to build a better business environment by acting more ethically and responsibility. By moving the ball forward in this manner, it may well lead to a country’s economy to be trusted which could well lead to greater economic development.

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, 2014

Yesterday, I reviewed the conduct which Weatherford International Limited (Weatherford) engaged in over a period from 2002-2011 in connection with its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation, noted the deficiencies in its compliance program and its internal controls and even how the company intentionally impeded the investigations of both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, I want to look at how the company changed course in mid-stream during the investigation, brought in a top-notch and well respected lawyer as its Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), created a best-in-class compliance program; all of which saved the company millions of dollars in potential fines and penalties.

  1. I.                    DOJ Fine Calculation

To resolve the criminal aspects of this case, Weatherford agreed to pay an $87.2 million criminal penalty as part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the DOJ. There was also another $65.6 million paid to the SEC. However the figure paid to the DOJ was at the very bottom range of a potential criminal penalty. The range listed in the DPA was from $87.2 to $174.3 million. In coming up with this range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, it is significant for the actions that Weatherford did not receive credit for during the pendency of the investigation. The company did not receive a credit for self-reporting. The company only received a -2 for its cooperation because prior to 2008 the company engaged in activities to impede the regulators’ investigation.

So the fine range could have been more favorable to the company. But the key is that Weatherford received the low end of the range. How did they do this?

A.     New Sheriff in Town

One of the key things Weatherford did was bring in Billy Jacobson as its CCO and give him a seat at the table of the company’s Executive Board. He was a Federal Prosecutor in the Fraud Section, Criminal Division, US Department of Justice. He also served as an Assistant Chief for FCPA Enforcement Department so we can assume he understood the FCPA and how prosecutors think through issues. (Jacobson also worked as a State Prosecutor in New York City, with my former This Week in FCPA co-host Howard Sklar, so shout out to Howard.) Jacobson was not hired directly from the DOJ but after he had left the DOJ and had gone into private practice. There is nothing that shows credibility like bringing in a respected subject matter expert and giving that person the tools and resources to turn things around.

But more than simply bringing in a new sheriff, Weatherford turned this talk into action by substantially increasing its cooperation with the government, thoroughly investigating all issues, turning over the results to the DOJ and SEC and providing literally millions of pages of documents to the regulators. The company also cleaned house by terminating officers and employees who were responsible for the illegal conduct.

B.     Increase in Compliance Function

In addition to establishing Jacobson in the high level CCO position, the company significantly increased the size of its compliance department by hiring 38 compliance professionals and conducted 30 anti-corruption compliance reviews in the countries in which Weatherford operates. This included the hiring of outside consultants to assess and review the company’s compliance program and beefing up due diligence on all third parties, including those in the sales and supply chain, joint venture (JV) partners and merger or acquisition (M&A) candidates. The company also agreed to continue to enhance its internal controls and books and records to prevent and/or detect future suspect conduct.

If you have ever heard any of the current Weatherford compliance professionals speak at FCPA conferences, you can appreciate that they are first rate; that they know their stuff and the company supports their efforts on an ongoing basis.

C.     Best in Class Compliance Program

During the pendency of the investigation, Weatherford moved to create a best practices compliance program. They appear to have done so and agreed in the DPA to continue to maintain such a compliance program. Under Schedule C to the DPA, it set out the compliance program which the company had implemented and continued to keep in place, at least during the length of the DPA. It included the following components.

  1. High level commitment from company officials and senior management to do business in compliance with the FCPA.
  2. A substantive written anti-corruption compliance code of conduct.
  3. Written policies and procedures to implement this code of conduct.
  4. A robust system of internal controls, including accounting and financial controls.
  5. Risk assessments and risk reviews of its ongoing business.
  6. No less than annual assessments of its overall compliance program.
  7. Appropriate oversight and responsibility of a Chief Compliance Officer.
  8. Effective training for all employees and relevant third parties.
  9. An effective compliance function which can provide guidance to company employees.
  10. A robust internal reporting system.
  11. Effective investigations of any reported compliance issue.
  12. Appropriate incentives for employees to do business ethically and in compliance.
  13. Enforced discipline for any employee who violates the company’s compliance program.
  14. Suitable due diligence and management of third parties and business partners.
  15. A correct level of pre-acquisition due diligence for any merger or acquisition candidate, including a risk assessment and reporting to the DOJ if the company uncovers and FCPA-violative conduct during this pre-acquisition phase.
  16. As soon as practicable, Weatherford will integrate any newly acquired entity into its compliance regime, including training of all relevant new employees, a FCPA forensic audit and reporting of any ongoing violations.
  17. Ongoing monitoring, testing and auditing of the company’s compliance function, taking into account any “relevant developments in the field and the evolving international and industry standards.”

D.    Monitor

Weatherford also agreed to an external monitor. However, the term of the monitor is not the entire length of the three-year DPA; the term of the monitor is only 18 months. The monitor’s primary function is to assess the company’s compliance with the terms of the DPA and report the results to the DOJ at least twice during the terms of the monitorship. After this 18 month term the DOJ will allow the company to self-report to the regulators. It should be noted that the term of the external monitor can be extended by the DOJ.

II.                Conclusion

It certainly has been a long, strange journey for Weatherford. I should note that I have not discussed at all the Oil-For-Food aspect of this settlement, which was an additional $100MM penalty to the company. However, with regard to the FCPA aspects of the matter, there are some very solid and telling lessons to be drawn from this case. First and foremost is that cooperation is always the key. But more than simply cooperating in the investigation is that a company should take a pro-active approach to putting a best-in-class compliance program in place during, rather than after the investigation concludes. Also, a company cannot simply ‘talk-the-talk’ but must come through and do the work to gain the credit. The bribery schemes that the company had engaged in and the systemic failures of its compliance program and internal controls, should serve as a good set of examples for the compliance practitioner to use in assessing a compliance program.

The settlement also sends a clear message from both the DOJ and SEC on not only what type of conduct will be rewarded under the US Sentencing Guidelines, but what they expect as a compliance program. One does not have read tea leaves or attempt to divine what might be an appropriate commitment to compliance to see what the regulators expect these day.

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, 2013