How it worksWhat is satisfactory due diligence under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? That question seems to be more important after the Huffington Post’s story on Unaoil and the subsequent release of the Panama Papers. However, both of these events largely focused on the “who” part of due diligence and the need to know whom you are doing business with going forward. However there is another important question which does not come up as often in due diligence, which is how?

How does a particular third party perform its services with or for your company? If it is on the sales side of things, how can a third party help you make sales? If a third party comes through the Supply Chain, how do their products or services meet the needs of your company? If the third party has a closer business relationship, such as a joint venture (JV), teaming agreement or other similar arrangement, you may well need a much deeper understand of how this third party does business because the relationship may well become so close you will be intertwined with the party. It may mean more than simply does their how product work but how does this third party conduct themselves and their business?

The questions beyond simply who were made clear in a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article by Christopher Weaver and John Carreyrou, entitled “Deal With Theranos Haunts Walgreens. It turns out that Walgreens left a gap by “never fully validating the startup’s technology or thoroughly evaluating its capabilities”. The clear message is if you are going to partner with a technology company which is going to change your business model, you best make sure the technology works. Moreover, if a potential JV partner refuses to show you its technology, how it keeps records, its financials relating to the products and services you are contracting for and generally tries to hide from you the very thing you are buying into; you should not walk but run away from the deal.

This article detailed the lack of steps and miss-steps by Walgreens when entering its partnership with Theranos and how these actions have caused Walgreens to consider its $50MM investment in Theranos as something it will never recoup, caused Walgreens reputational damage and potentially subjected it to civil liability. As the reporters noted, “The relationship is now in tatters, making Walgreens an extreme case study of what can go wrong when an established company that craves growth decides to gamble on an exciting and unproven startup.”

One might think that if you are investing in a technology company that provides medical testing, the investor would want to see the laboratory where the testing is performed. It turns out that Walgreens representatives were never allowed to tour, let alone review the labs where the results of Theranos pinprick blood tests were run. A Walgreens consultant, Paul Rust, who was sent to Theranos to do a quality control data review said, “It was a very strange situation. The results were actually really good, but I was never allowed to go into the lab. I have no idea that the results I saw were run on the Edison devices or not.” He went on to say that he was “led to believe that they were being run on the Edison.” Yet even Rust was surprised no Walgreens representatives had been allowed to view Theranos labs.

Interestingly, when Theranos did provide the test results to Walgreens representatives, the results came back with ““low” and “high” values rather than numeric values. As a result, Walgreens couldn’t compare results from the Theranos machine to any commercially available tests.” Once again, this was something which Walgreens should be sought additional information on.

Yet even when Walgreens’ consultants, assisting the company in evaluating Theranos and the proposed transaction, voiced and wrote up their concerns, they were not passed along to Walgreens management. The article reported, “In a report later in 2011, the consultants concluded Walgreens needed more information to assess the partnership. Those findings and reports by other consultants were kept from many Walgreens officials, including some directly involved in the negotiations with Theranos.”

Walgreens made another classic mistake in the due diligence process; they took comfort when a competitor was allegedly considering a similar venture with Theranos. The article said, “Some executives were comforted when Theranos said Safeway Inc. had agreed to host blood-drawing sites at some of its supermarkets. If Safeway trusted Theranos, then Walgreens could, too, the Walgreens officials believed.” How often have your heard that some other company is considering or has approved them through due diligence and a decision was based on the alleged actions of an alleged party.

Walgreens hamstrung itself from managing the relationship after the contract was signed by agreeing to contract terms that prevented Walgreens from auditing or even viewing “Theranos clinical data or financial records”. Finally, and perhaps most damagingly, there was a complete lack of communications between the two companies about the issues that have bedeviled Theranos. The article concluded, “Walgreens shelved the expansion plans after the Journal reported in October that Theranos did the vast majority of tests it offered to consumers on traditional lab machines. The Journal also reported that some former employees doubted the accuracy of a small number of tests run on Edison devices. One of the most recent setbacks came in mid-April when the Journal reported that regulators had 3½ weeks earlier proposed banning Ms. Holmes from the lab-testing industry. The drugstore chain’s senior executives found out from the news report.”

In the FCPA, most companies understand the need to know with who they contract for sales or vendor related issues. They also understand the need to know why they should do business with a proposed third party (IE., a business justification). However the need to perform an investigation into how the third party can actually deliver what they are contracted to do is equally important. Moreover, even with the most robust due diligence, there are still additional steps which a company must engage in to properly manage third parties. Most compliance practitioners believe that compliance terms and conditions should be a part of every contract and there is really no debate that an audit clause and material breach of contract provision should be included.

The Walgreens imbroglio around Theranos points out why such clauses are mandatory. If you do not have them, you do not have the ability verify what you may or may not have been told in due diligence. Finally, managing the relationship after the contract is signed is where the rubber hits the road. If you only obtain a due diligence report and insert compliance terms and conditions, you will have done nothing to test whether the third party is actually performing as it has agreed to under the terms of the contract.

Perhaps if Walgreens had inquired into the how Theranos performed its medical testing it would not find itself in the situation it is in now.

 

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

2.0If there was one theme from Compliance Week 2016 it was the continued evolution of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) role and the compliance profession. Long gone are the days when someone is sent over from a legal department into the compliance department or worse, some lawyer who is just given the title of CCO and this is considered to be a best practice or even sufficient. In the opening keynote presentation, representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made clear they expect a CCO to know more than simply the laws of anti-corruption, they must actually work to do compliance in an organization. A key metric of doing compliance is the independence of the CCO and compliance function.

The conference was bookended by the keynote session “The Maturing of a Profession: The Rise of Compliance 2.0” which laid out the structural changes that have occurred for the CCO and compliance profession as a whole over the past 10 years or so. The starting point for the compliance profession was when the Sentencing Guidelines were made effective in the early 1990s. Because this function was borne out of essentially a criminal law enactment, in the form of the Sentencing Guidelines, it seemed to make sense at the time to respond with a legalistic approach such as having a General Counsel (GC) also be the CCO or having the compliance function in the legal department. The response to the accounting scandals of the early 2000s led to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which mandated more robust compliance programs, thereby enhancing the role of the CCO. There were later updates to the Sentencing Guidelines, which also helped to change the structure of compliance.

As with most legalistic approaches, such as those to the Sentencing Guidelines, it began by corporations setting out their internal rules and regulations; first in the form of a Code of Conduct and certainly after Opinion Release 04-02 in 2004 with the implementation of a written compliance program in the form of policies and procedures. Then training, incentives and punishments were put in place. Of course such an approach did not take into account third parties and perhaps that is why the majority of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases over the past 12 years have involved third parties.

Yet now the above structure is no longer sufficient. That is reason for the nomenclature of Compliance 2.0 as a true structural change has occurred moving the compliance function out from under the legal department and separating the CCO from the GC. What are the changes in this structural component? The final keynote of Compliance Week 2016 presented five key transformations.

  1. Empowerment

Here the CCO is empowered by charter or Board direction to carry out their duties. A CCO does not have to ask the GC for permission as they are more generally reporting directly to the Board or the Audit Committee of the Board. Further, the CCO position is now a senior corporate level role, often in the C-Suite. In the corporate world titles and position matter and if your position is seen as being on the level of the corporate brass it will give you more weight to carry the day.

  1. Independence

The key change here is the independence of the mandate of compliance from that of the legal department. The legal department has and always will exist to defend the company. It is asked to opine on whether a particular act is legal; in other words can we do it, not should we do it? The compliance function exists to prevent, detect and remediate problems, in other words fix things. The compliance function also differs from the legal function in that it has a non-discretionary escalation of issues through its unfiltered access to a company’s Board of Directors, through a direct reporting line.

  1. Seat at the table

Here the key is that compliance is seen as collaborative with legal and not subordinate. Yet this takes work and agreement by both legal and compliance to carve out their respective roles so that toes are not stepped on or even worse in the corporate world, feelings are not bruised. It also entails both the CCO and the compliance function being involved in the company’s strategic planning meetings so that compliance can be proactive and not simply reactive. Of course this means involvement in risk management meetings, operational reviews and budget reviews, as that is where the corporation sets its priorities.

  1. Line of sight

This is probably the biggest change in the structure of compliance. The CCO and compliance function should be able see into the business functions directly, not through the eyes or even the lens of the legal department. Yet it also means compliance should work towards an understanding through the integration of compliance risk areas for review, with unfettered access to information. It also means the business functions need to report up to compliance through regular reporting channels. Finally, all of this, by necessity requires the tearing down of silos so that compliance has visibility up and down the chain in this line of sight.

  1. Resources

As was made clear by both Andrew Weissmann from the DOJ and Stephen Cohen from the SEC in the opening keynote, the resources made available to the CCO and compliance function are becoming a more key metric for regulatory review. Fortunately this is also a key structural change moving to Compliance 2.0. Resources most generally mean two things: budget and head count.

For budgeting the change in Compliance 2.0 is that the compliance function has its own standalone budget, which should be sufficient to fulfill the compliance mandate. I think that it is beyond obvious to state that a strong compliance budget is always less expensive than a FCPA fine and penalty so the investment is sound. Head count is the corporate term for staffing but here it is more than simply bodies. It requires true subject matter experts (SMEs) either through professional experience or internal training. It also means compliance personnel reporting up to the CCO. If a company uses non-compliance department compliance champions, these folks should at least have dotted line reporting to the CCO.

I have laid out these structural changes in some detail so that you can benchmark your compliance program to see if there are gaps, which you might wish to remediate from a structural perspective. For those of you who did not feel there has not been enough evolution of the compliance function; not to worry as there is a lot more to talk about in Compliance 3.0. Stay tuned…

 

 

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

7K0A0116Yesterday I began an exploration of the potential individual liability of a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) based upon the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) enforcement action against Raymond James Inc. and its former CCO, Linda Busby. Today, I will consider the specific deficiencies laid out in the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (Letter of Acceptance) and what lessons might be drawn going forward.

It is incumbent to note the basis of liability is FINRA Rule 3310, which requires the company to “develop and implement a written anti-money laundering program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the member’s compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act…” The required policies and procedures needed are to detect and report suspicious activity and monitor transactions for specified red flags. If such red flags were detected, additional investigation was required and any clearance of such a red flag required documentation. Some of the specifics of 3310 included appropriate due diligence on both customers and corresponding accounts for foreign financial institutions, a risk-based assessment of new clients and a review of red flags that might be raised in the above. Busby, as CCO, was required to implement the foregoing.

As noted yesterday, Busby was sorely understaffed, underfunded and probably could never have overseen a functioning and effective compliance program, had the company deigned to put one in place. However, the company obviously thought it did not have to do so. As noted in the Letter of Acceptance, the company “did not have a single written procedures manual describing AML procedures; rather to the extent written procedures existed addressing supervision related to AML, they were scattered through various departments.” Moreover, Busby did not have control or even oversight into individuals in other departments handing anti-money laundering (AML) issues. Finally, the company did not have any oversight for monitoring suspicious activity. The Letter of Acceptance noted these shortcomings were failures of both the company and Busby.

FINRA dived deeper into the weeds when it faulted both the company and Busby for not monitoring known high-risk transactions or individuals. The Letter of Acceptance listed high-risk activity as:

  • Transfers of funds to unrelated accounts without any apparent business purpose;
  • Journaling securities and cash between unrelated accounts for no apparent business purpose, particularly internal transfers of cash from customer accounts to employee or employee-related accounts; and
  • Movement of funds, by wire transfer or otherwise, from multiple accounts to the same third party account.
  • The company did not have any procedures “in place to reasonably monitor for high-risk incoming wire activity, such as third-party wires and wires received from known money laundering or high-risk jurisdictions.”

All of this meant that neither the company nor Busby were able to monitor or later investigate suspicious activity. FINRA turned up 513 accounts that engaged in high-risk activity that were never even spotted let alone investigated. There was no overall risk assessment performed which might have allowed Busby to marshal her limited resources and focus on the highest risk transactions. As you would expect there was no technological solution in place that allowed Busby to “conduct any trend or pattern analysis or otherwise combine information generated by the multiple reports to look for patterns”. All of Busby’s analysis had to be done the old fashioned way, through manual review.

While there were some reports generated by the company that might have been of use in an AML analysis, they were either deficient or not tied to similar reports. Even when the information was available there was no overall risk ranking for the company’s customers that would have allowed transaction monitoring on a more proactive basis. Finally, and this one is perhaps the most unbelievable, there was no linking of customer accounts so no pattern of single customer activity could be reviewed.

In addition to these overall AML program deficiencies, the Letter of Acceptance listed failures by Busby when sufficient information was available to her. There were thousands of alerts generated regarding suspicious activities each month that were closed out with no documentation as to the rationale for closing the suspicious activity alert. There was no documented clearance of red flags raised, even in the process the company did have in place.

The customer due diligence report was not even provided to Busby or the AML team but to the company’s credit department, one of those departments that Busby had no visibility into. When there was sufficient information to investigate customers, Busby and her team failed to do so and the Letter of Acceptance listed several instances where Busby failed to document that customers had been sanctioned by the US Department of the Treasury. The Letter of Acceptance laid out some useful indicia of suspicious transactions including (1) rounded dollar amounts; (2) purpose of payment inconsistent with the customer’s prior activities; (3) the domicile of the individual receiving the funds was not the location where the funds were transferred; (4) the Letter of Authorization provided to the company was dated at or near the date of transfer.

Finally, and to no doubt warm the heart of every process analysis and professional out there, FINRA criticized the lack of oversight. Busby was criticized for failing to engage in appropriate oversight of the company’s AML risk. But the company also failed in its oversight role of providing oversight to the CCO and the compliance function. If it had done so perhaps the company would have realized the impossible position Busby was in and the utterly impossible role she had to accomplish.

Fortunately for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance CCO, the financial services industry has specific rules that require compliance programs. Such regulations do not exist around the FCPA. However the analysis that FINRA used to bring charges against Busby could well bleed over to CCOs and compliance professionals in the future. With the new Department of Justice (DOJ) compliance counsel, the role of the CCO may be given more scrutiny going forward. It is painful to picture an anti-corruption CCO assessed with liability for a corporation which views compliance as poorly as did Raymond James but they are out there.

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

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