Podcasts about ten hallmarks

Stem cells are the building blocks for the human body, and without stem cell activity, the body can't repair, regenerate or renew itself. Stem cell activity decreases as we age, but there are several ways to reverse the effects of that biological process. In today's episode, I share simple, cost-effective wellness protocols that can help you create a healthy environment for stem cells to thrive. There are three main types of stem cells and different therapies associated with them. But, before you go down the path of procedures that cost tens of thousands of dollars, there are things you can do everyday to optimize healthy stem cell activity. Between your diet, exercise, and stress management, your experience of aging is within your control. One of the tools that has been instrumental for me in my journey of feeling younger while growing older has been using LifeWave patch technology. In this episode, I unpack the benefits of these patches and announce a giveaway I'm doing so you can try them out. Here's how to enter to win a 30-day supply of LifeWave X39 or X49 stem cell activation patches: Leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Screenshot your review and send it to dana@danafrost.com or via Instagram DM @danafrost.  Follow me on Instagram, link to this episode on your Instagram story and tag me in that story. The giveaway closes on May 8th, so be sure to enter before then! Listen in to learn more about what stem cells are and how you can continue to promote stem cell activity as you age. If you are enjoying these conversations, please subscribe and spread the love by leaving a review and sharing it with your friends.Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, TuneIn, or on your favorite podcast platform. Topics Covered: The role that stem cells play in overall health and quality of lifeKey lifestyle changes that can promote the activation and growth of stem cellsThe pros and cons of different stem cell therapies that are available right now Non-invasive and convenient ways to support the body's natural production of stem cells. The changes that I've noticed in myself since I started using LifeWave patches Resources Mentioned:Episode 24. DNA Testing and Your Health with Kashif Khan, CEO and Founder of The DNA CompanyEpisode 60. The Ten Hallmarks of Aging with Chris MirabileLearn more about LifeWave   Get in Touch: My WebsiteInstagramSpecial offers: Download the Daily Vitality eBook at danafrost.com/daily-vitality/Credit:Podcast Production by the team at The Wave PodcastingMusic by Phoebe GreenlandPhotography by Amy Boyle PhotographyPodcast art by  SimplyBe. Agency

We don't have to accept the aging model that has been the norm in our modern life. We all have agency over how we chronologically age, and there are so many tools out there to support us on that journey. In this episode, I'm joined by Chris Mirabile, the founder and CEO of NOVOS, the first and only company that addresses human aging by targeting the ten mechanisms of aging. It's a sophisticated topic, but Chris really breaks down the ten hallmarks of aging and how they're all interconnected. He also highlights two supplements that NOVOS brought to market and the outstanding results from studies related to those products. Chris shares the ‘aha moment' moment when he realized that there are things we can do that positively impact the aging experience. His vision for NOVOS is to contribute more than a billion years to humanity by addressing aging at the cellular level. In our conversation, he touches on some of the science behind the NOVOS routine that combats the root causes of aging and helps unlock your vitality. Listen in to learn more about Chris's story and his mission for improving the human experience.  If you are enjoying these conversations, please subscribe and spread the love by leaving a review and sharing it with your friends.Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, TuneIn, or on your favorite podcast platform. Topics Covered:The radical transformation that Chris went through after he discovered he had a brain tumor as a teenager Myths about what determines your lifespan and healthspan The ten hallmarks of aging Ways to help fuel and protect your stem cells What a public benefit company is and why Chris decided to build that into the foundation of NOVOSResources Mentioned:NOVOS Age TestNOVOS Face Age TestNOVOS Webinar Series: SupplementsNOVOS Webinar Series: Longevity LifestyleConnect with Chris: NOVOS WebsiteNOVOS InstagramNOVOS TikTokNOVOS Facebook NOVOS TwitterNOVOS LinkedInChris's LinkedInChris's InstagramChris's WebsiteGet in Touch: My WebsiteInstagramSpecial offers: Download the Daily Vitality eBook at danafrost.com/daily-vitality/Credit:Podcast Production by the team at The Wave PodcastingMusic by Phoebe GreenlandPhotography by Amy Boyle PhotographyPodcast art by SimplyBe. Agency

The foundation of cancer prevention is plants, not pills.

What are internal controls? The best definition I have come across is from Jonathan Marks who defined internal controls as: An internal control is an action or process of interlocking activities designed to support the policies and procedures detailing the specific preventative, detective, corrective, directive and corroborative actions required to achieve the desired process outcomes or the objectives(s). This, along with continuous auditing, continuous monitoring and training reasonably assures:  The achievement of the process objectives linked to the organization's objectives; Operational effectiveness and efficiency; Reliable (complete and accurate) books and records (financial reporting); Compliance with laws, regulations and policies; and  The reduction of risk-fraud, waste and abuse, which,    Aids in the decline of process and policy variation, leading to more predictive outcomes. The DOJ and SEC, in the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, stated: Internal controls over financial reporting are the processes used by compa­nies to provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliabil­ity of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. They include various components, such as: a control environment that covers the tone set by the organi­zation regarding integrity and ethics; risk assessments; con­trol activities that cover policies and procedures designed to ensure that management directives are carried out (e.g., approvals, authorizations, reconciliations, and segregation of duties); information and communication; and monitoring. … The design of a company's internal controls must take into account the operational realities and risks attendant to the company's business, such as: the nature of its products or services; how the products or services get to market; the nature of its work force; the degree of regulation; the extent of its government interaction; and the degree to which it has operations in countries with a high risk of corruption. This was supplemented in the 2020 Update, with a pair of pointed questions: whether a company has made significant investigation into its internal controls and have they been tested, then remediated based upon the testing? The bottom line is that internal controls are just good financial controls. The internal controls that detail requirements for third-party representatives in the compliance context will help to detect fraud, which could well lead to bribery and corruption. As an exercise, map your existing internal controls to the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program or some other well-known anti-corruption regime to see where gaps may exist. This will help you to determine whether adequate compliance internal controls are present in your company. From there you can move to see if they are working in practice. Three key takeaways: Effective internal controls are required under the FCPA Internal controls are a critical part of any best practices compliance program There are four significant controls for the compliance practitioner to implement initially. (a) Delegation of authority (DOA); (b) Maintenance of the vendor master file; (c) Contracts with third parties; and (d) Movement of cash/currency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What are internal controls? The best definition I have come across is from Jonathan Marks who defined internal controls as:  An internal control is an action or process of interlocking activities designed to support the policies and procedures detailing the specific preventative, detective, corrective, directive and corroborative actions required to achieve the desired process outcomes or the objectives(s). This, along with continuous auditing, continuous monitoring and training reasonably assures:  The achievement of the process objectives linked to the organization’s objectives; Operational effectiveness and efficiency; Reliable (complete and accurate) books and records (financial reporting); Compliance with laws, regulations and policies; and  The reduction of risk-fraud, waste and abuse, which,    Aids in the decline of process and policy variation, leading to more predictive outcomes. The DOJ and SEC, in the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, stated: Internal controls over financial reporting are the processes used by compa­nies to provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliabil­ity of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. They include various components, such as: a control environment that covers the tone set by the organi­zation regarding integrity and ethics; risk assessments; con­trol activities that cover policies and procedures designed to ensure that management directives are carried out (e.g., approvals, authorizations, reconciliations, and segregation of duties); information and communication; and monitoring. … The design of a company’s internal controls must take into account the operational realities and risks attendant to the company’s business, such as: the nature of its products or services; how the products or services get to market; the nature of its work force; the degree of regulation; the extent of its government interaction; and the degree to which it has operations in countries with a high risk of corruption. This was supplemented in the 2020 Update, with a pair of pointed questions: whether a company has made significant investigation into its internal controls and have they been tested, then remediated based upon the testing? The bottom line is that internal controls are just good financial controls. The internal controls that detail requirements for third-party representatives in the compliance context will help to detect fraud, which could well lead to bribery and corruption. As an exercise, map your existing internal controls to the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program or some other well-known anti-corruption regime to see where gaps may exist. This will help you to determine whether adequate compliance internal controls are present in your company. From there you can move to see if they are working in practice. Three key takeaways: Effective internal controls are required under the FCPA Internal controls are a critical part of any best practices compliance program There are four significant controls for the compliance practitioner to implement initially. (a) Delegation of authority (DOA); (b) Maintenance of the vendor master file; (c) Contracts with third parties; and (d) Movement of cash/currency.

As they made clear with several FCPA enforcement actions in 2020, the SEC has continued to emphasize the accounting provisions of the FCPA, specifically the internal controls provisions. Charles Cain, the Chief, FCPA Unit; Division of Enforcement of the SEC, reiterated that the SEC is committed to protecting investors in U.S. public companies and those which list other securities in the U.S., through enforcement of the accounting provisions, including internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The reason is straightforward; a company with rigorous internal compliance controls is better able to prevent, detect and remedy any FCPA violations that may occur. What can you do around the FCPA’s requirements for internal controls and continued SEC enforcement emphasis? I would suggest that you begin with an exercise where you map the internal controls your company has in place to the indicia of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as set out in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. While most compliance practitioners are familiar with the Hallmarks, you may not be as familiar with standards for internal controls. I would suggest that you begin with the COSO 2013 Internal Controls Framework as your starting point. As a CCO or compliance practitioner, this is an exercise that you can engage in at no cost. You simply investigate and note what internal controls you have in place and how they may be a part of your anti-corruption efforts going forward. Compliance is a straightforward exercise; this does not mean that it is easy, you do have to work at it so that you will simply not have a paper, “check the box”, program. But using the excuse that you have limited resources is simply an excuse and a rather poor one at that. While the clear lesson from the BHP enforcement action is that you are required to have effective internal controls in place, by engaging in this mapping exercise you can then figure out what you have and, more importantly, what internal compliance controls that you do not have and need to institute. Three key takeaways: Learn the internal controls your company currently has in place. Map your compliance internal controls to the COSO 2013 Internal Controls Framework. Use your gap analysis as a basis for remediation.

Welcome to this month's offer of 31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program. This month I will focus on the Board of Directors and its role in an effective compliance program. At the end of August, you will not only have a good summary of the basics of a best practices compliance program for a Board of Directors but information that you can incorporate into your compliance regime. Case law. As to the specific role of best practices in the area of general compliance and ethics, one can look to Delaware corporate law for guidance. The case of In Re Caremark International Inc., 698 A.2d 959, (Del. SCt. 1996) was the first case to hold that a Board’s obligation “includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure that a corporate information and reporting system, which the board concludes is adequate, exists, and that failure to do so under some circumstances may, in theory at least, render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards.” 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. A Board’s duty under the FCPA is well-known. In the FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, there are two specific references to the obligations of a Board. The first, in Hallmark No. 1, states: “Within a business organization, compliance begins with the board of directors and senior executives setting the proper tone for the rest of the company.” The second is found under Hallmark No. 3 and notes that the CCO should have “direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors (e.g., the audit committee).” Further, under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the Board must exercise reasonable oversight on the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program. The DOJ’s Prosecution Standards posed the following queries: 1) Do the Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? and 2) Are Directors provided information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment? From the Delaware cases, a Board must not only have a corporate compliance program in place but actively oversee that function. Further, if a company’s business plan includes a high-risk proposition, there should be additional oversight. In other words, there is an affirmative duty to ask the tough questions. The specific obligations set out regarding the FCPA drive home these general legal obligations down to the specific level of the statute. Three key takeaways: The Delaware courts have led the way with the In Re Caremark and Stone v. Ritter decisions. Note the obligations of the Board under the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also require Board involvement and oversight. A special thanks to this month's sponsor, Affiliated Monitors, Inc. 

Continuous improvement can come in many different, shapes, sizes and packages. As with all things compliance, you are only limited by your imagination. Have you ever thought about a tech implementation as a way for continuous improvement? Probably not but it is also a way forward for continuous improvement. Think about that for a moment as this is taking the concept of continuous improvement and adding an ongoing tech solution. This is one of the areas both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discussed in their jointly issued 2012 FCPA Guidance, as Hallmark 9 in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. This is not simply taking data from your compliance program and feeding it back in to create continuous improvement, but it is using a tech solution to not only make your compliance program run more efficiently but using that same tech solution to help continuously improve your compliance program. Such an approach uses the subject matter expertise (SME) of the tech solution provider to help the compliance professional come up with a more effective compliance program. For the compliance professional it is expanding out their reach and scope through the use of not only this tech SME but with the information from their own compliance program to create greater efficiencies and effectiveness.  Three key takeaways:  Even in continuous improvement, you are only limited by your imagination. The delivery of a tech solution for compliance can be beneficial in multiple ways. Start your analytics at the transaction level and move upwards.

We previously considered the Prong in the Evaluation that was not present in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program; that being root cause analysis. The requirement was first raised in the 2017 Evaluation. It was then carried forward as a requirement in the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, later in 2017. It was discussed again in the 2019 Guidance. You should begin with the question of who should perform the remediation; should it be an investigator or an investigative team which were a part of the root cause analysis? Jonathan Marks, believes the key is both “independence and objectivity.” It may be that an investigator or investigative team is a subject matter expert and “therefore more qualified to get that particular recourse”. Yet to perform the remediation, the key is to integrate the information developed from the root cause analysis into the solution. Marks further noted that the company may also have deficiencies in internal controls. More importantly, the failure to remediate gaps in internal controls “provides the opportunity for additional errors or misconduct to occur, and thus could damage the company’s credibility with regulators” by allowing the same or similar conduct to reoccur. Finally, with both the 2019 Guidance and FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ has added its voice to prior SEC statements that regulators “will focus on what steps the company took upon learning of the misconduct, whether the company immediately stopped the misconduct, and what new and more effective internal controls or procedures the company has adopted or plans to adopt to prevent a recurrence.” Three key takeaways: The key is objectivity and independence. The critical element is how did you use the information you developed in the root cause analysis? The key is that after you have identified the causes of problems, consider the solutions that can be implemented by developing a logical approach, using data that already exists in the organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We previously considered the Prong in the Evaluation that was not present in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program; that being root cause analysis. The requirement was first raised in the 2017 Evaluation. It was then carried forward as a requirement in the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, later in 2017. It was discussed again in the 2019 Guidance. You should begin with the question of who should perform the remediation; should it be an investigator or an investigative team which were a part of the root cause analysis? Jonathan Marks, believes the key is both “independence and objectivity.” It may be that an investigator or investigative team is a subject matter expert and “therefore more qualified to get that particular recourse”. Yet to perform the remediation, the key is to integrate the information developed from the root cause analysis into the solution. Marks further noted that the company may also have deficiencies in internal controls. More importantly, the failure to remediate gaps in internal controls “provides the opportunity for additional errors or misconduct to occur, and thus could damage the company’s credibility with regulators” by allowing the same or similar conduct to reoccur. Finally, with both the 2019 Guidance and FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ has added its voice to prior SEC statements that regulators “will focus on what steps the company took upon learning of the misconduct, whether the company immediately stopped the misconduct, and what new and more effective internal controls or procedures the company has adopted or plans to adopt to prevent a recurrence. Three key takeaways: The key is objectivity and independence. The critical element is how did you use the information you developed in the root cause analysis? The key is that after you have identified the causes of problems, consider the solutions that can be implemented by developing a logical approach, using data that already exists in the organization.

The role of the compliance professional and the compliance function in a corporation has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. When it came to the corporate compliance function, 2012 FCPA Guidance, under Hallmark Three of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, simply noted the government would “consider whether the company devoted adequate staffing and resources to the compliance program given the size, structure, and risk profile of the business.”  This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the 2019 Guidance and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. And in so doing, the DOJ has increased the prestige, authority and role of both the corporate compliance function. The 2019 Guidance has four general areas of inquiry around the corporate compliance function. (1) What is the seniority and stature of the compliance function within an organization? (2) What are the experience and stature of the compliance personnel with an organization? (3) What is the funding and resources made available to the compliance function? (4) How much autonomy does the compliance function have to report to the Board of Directors? Three key takeaways: How is compliance treated in the budget process? Has your compliance function had any decisions over-ridden by senior management? Beware outsourcing of compliance as any such contractor must have access to company documents and personnel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The role of the compliance professional and the compliance function in a corporation has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. When it came to the corporate compliance function, 2012 FCPA Guidance, under Hallmark Three of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, simply noted the government would “consider whether the company devoted adequate staffing and resources to the compliance program given the size, structure, and risk profile of the business.” This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the 2019 Guidance and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. And in so doing, the DOJ has increased the prestige, authority and role of both the corporate compliance function. The 2019 Guidance has four general areas of inquiry around the corporate compliance function. (1) What is the seniority and stature of the compliance function within an organization? (2) What are the experience and stature of the compliance personnel with an organization? (3) What is the funding and resources made available to the compliance function? (4) How much autonomy does the compliance function have to report to the Board of Directors? Three key takeaways: How is compliance treated in the budget process? Has your compliance function had any decisions over-ridden by senior management? Beware outsourcing of compliance as any such contractor must have access to company documents and personnel.

The role of the CCO has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. In the 2012 FCPA Guidance, under Hallmark Three of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, it focused on the whether the CCO held senior management status and had a direct reporting line to the Board; stating: In appraising a compliance program, DOJ and SEC also consider whether a company has assigned responsibility for the oversight and implementation of a company’s compliance program to one or more specific senior executives within an organization. Those individuals must have appropriate authority within the organization, adequate autonomy from management, and sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively. Adequate autonomy generally includes direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors. This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the 2019 Guidance and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. And in so doing, the DOJ has increased the prestige, authority and role of both the CCO and corporate compliance function. The 2019 Guidance has four general areas of inquiry around the CCO and corporate compliance function. (1) How does the CCO salary and stature within the organization compare to other senior executives within the company. (2) What are the experience and stature of the CCO with an organization? Does the CCO have appropriate training for the role? (3) How much autonomy does the CCO have to report to the Board of Directors? How often do the CCO meet with directors? Are members of the senior management present for these meetings with the Board of Directors or of the Audit Committee? (4) Is the compliance function run by a designated chief compliance officer, or another executive within the company, and does that person have other roles within the company?   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The role of the CCO has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. In the 2012 FCPA Guidance, under Hallmark Three of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, it focused on the whether the CCO held senior management status and had a direct reporting line to the Board; stating: In appraising a compliance program, DOJ and SEC also consider whether a company has assigned responsibility for the oversight and implementation of a company’s compliance program to one or more specific senior executives within an organization. Those individuals must have appropriate authority within the organization, adequate autonomy from management, and sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively. Adequate autonomy generally includes direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors. This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the 2019 Guidance and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. And in so doing, the DOJ has increased the prestige, authority and role of both the CCO and corporate compliance function. The 2019 Guidance has four general areas of inquiry around the CCO and corporate compliance function. (1) How does the CCO salary and stature within the organization compare to other senior executives within the company. (2) What are the experience and stature of the CCO with an organization? Does the CCO have appropriate training for the role? (3) How much autonomy does the CCO have to report to the Board of Directors? How often do the CCO meet with directors? Are members of the senior management present for these meetings with the Board of Directors or of the Audit Committee? (4) Is the compliance function run by a designated chief compliance officer, or another executive within the company, and does that person have other roles within the company? Three key takeaways: How can you show the CCO really has a seat at the senior executive table? What are the professional qualifications of your CCO? Does your CCO have true independence to report directly to the Board of Directors?

Control Testing – Has the company reviewed and audited its compliance program in the area relating to the misconduct? More generally, what testing of controls, collection and analysis of compliance data, and interviews of employees and third-parties does the company undertake? How are the results reported and action items tracked?    Fortunately, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) 2013 Internal Controls Framework considers assessing compliance internal controls. In “Internal Controls – Integrated Framework, Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effectiveness of a System of Internal Controls”, COSO laid out its views on assessing the effectiveness of internal controls. It noted that an effective system of internal controls provides “reasonable assurance of achievement of the entity’s objectives, relating to operations, reporting and compliance.” Moreover, there are two over-arching requirements that can only be met through such a structured protocol. First, each of the five components are present and functioning. Second, that the five components operate in an integrated fashion with each other. One of the most critical components of the COSO Framework is that it sets internal control standards against those which you can audit to assess the strength of your compliance internal controls.  Three key takeaways: An effective system of internal controls provides reasonable assurance of achievement of the company’s objectives, relating to operations, reporting and compliance. There are two over-arching requirements for effective internal controls. First, each of the five components are present and function. Second, are the five components operating together in an integrated approach. For an anti-corruption compliance program, you can use the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as your guide to test against. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Control Testing – Has the company reviewed and audited its compliance program in the area relating to the misconduct? More generally, what testing of controls, collection and analysis of compliance data, and interviews of employees and third-parties does the company undertake? How are the results reported and action items tracked?    Fortunately, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) 2013 Internal Controls Framework considers assessing compliance internal controls. In “Internal Controls – Integrated Framework, Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effectiveness of a System of Internal Controls”, COSO laid out its views on assessing the effectiveness of internal controls. It noted that an effective system of internal controls provides “reasonable assurance of achievement of the entity’s objectives, relating to operations, reporting and compliance.” Moreover, there are two over-arching requirements that can only be met through such a structured protocol. First, each of the five components are present and functioning. Second, that the five components operate in an integrated fashion with each other. One of the most critical components of the COSO Framework is that it sets internal control standards against those which you can audit to assess the strength of your compliance internal controls. Three key takeaways: An effective system of internal controls provides reasonable assurance of achievement of the company’s objectives, relating to operations, reporting and compliance. There are two over-arching requirements for effective internal controls. First, each of the five components are present and function. Second, are the five components operating together in an integrated approach. For an anti-corruption compliance program, you can use the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as your guide to test against.

  As every compliance practitioner is well aware, third parties still present the highest risk under the FCPA. The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs - Guidance Document (2019 Guidance) devotes an entire prong to third-party management. It begins with the following: A well-designed compliance program should apply risk-based due diligence to its third-party relationships. Although the degree of appropriate due diligence may vary based on the size and nature of the company or transaction, prosecutors should assess the extent to which the company has an understanding of the qualifications and associations of third-party partners, including the agents, consultants, and distributors that are commonly used to conceal misconduct, such as the payment of bribes to foreign officials in international business transactions.   This clearly specifies that the DOJ expects an integrated approach that is operationalized throughout the company. This means you must have a process for the full life cycle of third-party risk management. There are five steps in the life cycle of third-party risk management, which will fulfill the DOJ requirements as laid out in the 2012 FCPA Guidance and in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. They five steps in the lifecycle of third-party management are: Business Justification; Questionnaire to Third-party; Due Diligence on Third-party; Compliance Terms and Conditions, including payment terms; and Management and Oversight of Third Parties After Contract Signing. Three key takeaways: Use the full 5-step process for third party management. Make sure you have business development involvement and buy-in. Operationalize all steps going forward by including business unit representatives.

As every compliance practitioner is well aware, third parties still present the highest risk under the FCPA. The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs - Guidance Document (2019 Guidance) devotes an entire prong to third-party management. It begins with the following: A well-designed compliance program should apply risk-based due diligence to its third-party relationships. Although the degree of appropriate due diligence may vary based on the size and nature of the company or transaction, prosecutors should assess the extent to which the company has an understanding of the qualifications and associations of third-party partners, including the agents, consultants, and distributors that are commonly used to conceal misconduct, such as the payment of bribes to foreign officials in international business transactions.   This clearly specifies that the DOJ expects an integrated approach that is operationalized throughout the company. This means you must have a process for the full life cycle of third-party risk management. There are five steps in the life cycle of third-party risk management, which will fulfill the DOJ requirements as laid out in the 2012 FCPA Guidance and in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. They five steps in the lifecycle of third-party management are:  Business Justification; Questionnaire to Third-party; Due Diligence on Third-party; Compliance Terms and Conditions, including payment terms; and Management and Oversight of Third Parties After Contract Signing.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is the intersection of innovation in your compliance program and the requirements of an effective compliance program? Today, Tom Fox continues his 5-part series on the front lines of compliance with Hallmark 10 of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program.Hallmark 10 states that: “A good compliance program should constantly evolve. A company’s business changes over time, as do the environments in which it operates, the nature of its customers, the laws that govern its actions, and the standards of its industry. In addition, compliance programs that do not just exist on paper but are followed in practice will inevitably uncover compliance weaknesses and require enhancements. Consequently, DOJ and SEC evaluate whether companies regularly review and improve their compliance programs and not allow them to become stale.” What does that actually mean? In short, it’s about putting compliance into the fabric of your organization. There are many ways to go about doing this, and one of the most effective ways is through the continuous improvement technique of ‘internal inspection.’ Ben Locwin discusses this in Episode 266 of the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report Podcast.With internal inspection, you’re looking at your program from the inside out. Ben Locwin explains it like this: “We have a problem. Let’s not run away from it. Let’s embrace it.” To do that, you should ask what you can do better, and what can you do next. The willingness of the organization to look at itself is key to continuous improvement.It’s not enough to admit there was a mistake and get rid of the employee who made it. Tom talks about how people aren’t willfully ignorant; they try to do the right things. It could be as simple as a clarity issue with how they understand their role or their work, and if that’s the case, the next employee could easily make the same mistake.Instead of laying blame at the people in the organization, it is wiser to do a ‘root cause analysis’ to determine and develop the preventative actions that can keep the problem from happening again. In other words, you fix the system and processes that led to the problem in the first place.Ongoing EducationIf you’re a compliance professional looking for a convenient and effective way to fulfill your continuing education requirements, visit Tom’s website and choose from 4 hour-long training packages that will keep you up to date with the latest developments in the compliance field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hallmark Nine of Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as articulated in the 2012 FCPA Guidance, states: "a good compliance program should constantly evolve." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One new and different item was laid out in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, supplementing the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program from the 2012 FCPA Guidance. This was the performance of a root cause analysis for any compliance violation which may led to a self-disclosure or enforcement action. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We previously considered the Prong in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs which was not present in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program; that being root cause analysis. This addition was also carried forward as a requirement in the Department of Justice’s new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. I want to consider how you should utilize the results of a root cause analysis in remediating a compliance program.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One new and different item was laid out in the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program, supplementing the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program from the 2012 FCPA Guidance. This was the performance of a root cause analysis for any compliance violation which may led to a self-disclosure or enforcement action. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Under Hallmark Nine of Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as articulated in the 2012 FCPA Guidance, it stated, “Finally, a good compliance program should constantly evolve.” This insight was carried forward in the Department of Justice’s 2017 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs which listed three types of continuous improvement: (1) internal audit, (2) control testing, and (3) evolving updates; each was category further refined with multiple attendant questions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the Department of Justice’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, Prong 8 Incentive and Disciplinary Measures it states: Incentive System – Consistent Application – Have the disciplinary actions and incentives been fairly and consistently applied across the organization? In the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy it states, “Appropriate discipline of employees, including those identified by the company as responsible for the misconduct, either through direct participation or failure in oversight, as well as those with supervisory authority over the area in which the criminal conduct occurred”. Under Hallmark Six of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program it states: In addition to evaluating the design and implementation of a compliance program throughout an organization, enforcement of that program is fundamental to its effectiveness. A compliance program should apply from the board room to the supply room—no one should be beyond its reach. DOJ and SEC will thus consider whether, when enforcing a compliance program, a company has appropriate and clear disciplinary procedures, whether those procedures are applied reliably and promptly, and whether they are commensurate with the violation. Many companies have found that publicizing disciplinary actions internally, where appropriate under local law, can have an important deterrent effect, demonstrating that unethical and unlawful actions have swift and sure consequences. However, I believe that the 2012 FCPA Guidance’s best practices are more active than the ‘stick’ of employee discipline to make a compliance program effective and I believe that it also requires a ‘carrot’. This requirement is codified in the US Sentencing Guidelines with the following language, “The organization’s compliance and ethics program shall be promoted and enforced consistently throughout the organization through (A) appropriate incentives to perform in accordance with the compliance and ethics program; and (B) appropriate disciplinary measures for engaging in criminal conduct and for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or detect criminal conduct.” One of the areas which Human Resources can operationalize your compliance program is to ensure that discipline is handed out fairly across an organization and to those employees who integrate such ethical and compliant behavior into their individual work practices going forward. This is more than financial incentives for ethical behavior but institutional objectivity for your employees. Institutional objectivity comes from procedural fairness. This is one of the things that will bring credibility to your compliance program. Today it is called the Fair Process Doctrine and this Doctrine generally recognizes that there are fair procedures, not arbitrary ones, in processes involving rights. Considerable research has shown that people are more willing to accept negative, unfavorable, and non-preferred outcomes when they are arrived at by, processes and procedures that are perceived as fair. Adhering to the Fair Process Doctrine in two areas of your Compliance Program is critical for you, as a compliance specialist or for your Compliance Department, to have credibility with the rest of the workforce. Finally, it is yet another way to more fully operationalize your compliance program. Administration of Discipline One area where the Fair Process Doctrine is paramount is in the administration of discipline after any compliance related incident. Discipline must not only be administered fairly but it must be administered uniformly across the company for the violation of any compliance policy. Simply put if you are going to fire employees in South America for lying on their expense reports, you have to fire them in North America for the same offense. It cannot matter that the North American employee is a friend of yours or worse yet a ‘high producer’. Failure to administer discipline uniformly will destroy any vestige of credibility that you may have developed. Similarly and as was re-emphasized in the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, there must be real consequences to employee who violate your compliance program. If the regulators come knocking and you have not disciplined any company employees for Code of Conduct or compliance program violations in multiple years, the DOJ and SEC will conclude pretty quickly you are not serious about compliance. Fair process means that you must discipline those who engage in compliance violations no matter what their position is with the organization. Employee Promotions In addition to the area of discipline which may be administered after the completion of any compliance investigation, you must also place compliance firmly as a part of ongoing employee evaluations and promotions. If your company is seen to advance and only reward employees who achieve their numbers by whatever means necessary, other employees will certainly take note and it will be understood what management evaluates, and rewards, employees upon. I have often heard the (anecdotal) tale about some Far East Region Manager which goes along the following lines “If I violated the Code of Conduct I may or may not get caught. If I get caught I may or may not be disciplined. If I miss my numbers for two quarters, I will be fired”. If this is what other employees believe about how they are evaluated and the basis for promotion, you have lost the compliance battle. Internal Investigations The third area the Fair Process Doctrine is critical in, is around internal company investigations. If your employees do not believe that the investigation is fair and impartial, then it is not fair and impartial. Further, those involved must have confidence that any internal investigation is treated seriously and objectively. One of the key reasons that employees will go outside of a company’s internal hotline process is because they do not believe that the investigation process will be fair. This fairness has several components. One would be the use of outside counsel, rather than in-house counsel to handle the investigation. Moreover, if company uses a regular firm, it may be that other outside counsel should be brought in, particularly if regular outside counsel has created or implemented key components which are being investigated. Further, if the company’s regular outside counsel has a large amount of business with the company, then that law firm may have a very vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Lastly, the investigation may require a level of specialization which in-house or regular outside counsel does not possess. An often-overlooked role of any CCO or compliance professional is to help provide employees procedural fairness. If your compliance function is seen to be fair in the way it treats employees, in areas as varied as financial incentives, to promotions, to uniform discipline meted out across the globe; employees are more likely to inform the compliance department when something goes array. If employees believe they will be treated fairly, it will go a long way to more fully operationalizing your compliance program. Three Key Takeaways The DOJ and SEC have long called for consistent application in both incentives and discipline. The Fair Process Doctrine ensures employees will accept results they may not like. Inconsistent application of discipline will destroy your compliance program credibility. This month’s podcast sponsor is Convercent. Convercent provides your teams with a centralized platform and automated processes that connect your business goals with your ethics and values. The result? A highly strategic program that drives ethics and values to the center of your business. For more information go to Convercent.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is a Board of Directors a compliance internal control? I think the clear answer is yes. In the FCPA Guidance, in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, there are two specific references to the obligations of a Board in a best practices compliance program. The first in Hallmark No. 1 states, “Within a business organization, compliance begins with the board of directors and senior executives setting the proper tone for the rest of the company.” The second is found under Hallmark No. 3, entitled “Oversight, Autonomy and Resources”, which says the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) should have “direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors (e.g., the audit committee).” Further, under the US Sentencing Guidelines, the Board must exercise reasonable oversight on the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program. The DOJ Prosecution Standards posed the following queries: (1) Do the Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? and (2) Are Directors provided information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment? The DOJ’s remarks drove home to me the absolute requirement for Board participation in any best practices or even effective anti-corruption compliance program. I believe that a Board must not only have a corporate compliance program in place but also actively oversee that function. Further, if a company’s business plan includes a high-risk proposition, there should be additional oversight. In other words, there is an affirmative duty to ask the tough questions. But it is more than simply having a compliance program in place. The Board must exercise appropriate oversight of the compliance program and indeed the compliance function. The Board needs to ask the hard questions and be fully informed of the company’s overall compliance strategy going forward. Lawyers often speak to and advise Boards on their legal obligations and duties. If a Board’s oversight is part of effective financial controls under Sarbanes Oxley (SOX), that also includes effective compliance controls. Failure to do either may result in something far worse than bad governance. It may directly lead to a FCPA violation and could even form the basis of an independent FCPA violation. A company must not only have a corporate compliance program in place it must also actively oversee that function. A failure to perform these functions may lead to independent liability of a Board for its failure to perform its allotted tasks in an effective compliance program. Internal controls work together with compliance policies and procedures are an interrelated set of compliance control mechanisms. There are five general compliance internal controls for a Board or Board subcommittee role for compliance: Corporate Compliance Policy and Code of Conduct - A Board should have an overall governance document which will inform the company, its employees, stakeholders and third parties of the conduct the company expects from an employee. If the company is global/multi-national, this document should be translated into the relevant languages as appropriate. Risk Assessment - A Board should assess the compliance risks associated with its business. Implementing Procedures - A Board should determine if the company has a written set of procedures in place that instructs employees on the details of how to comply with the company’s compliance policy. Training - There are two levels of Board training. The first should be that the Board has a general understanding of what the FCPA is and it should also understand its role in an effective compliance program. Monitor Compliance - A Board should independently test, assess and audit to determine if its compliance policies and procedures are a ‘living and breathing program’ and not just a paper tiger.  There have been recent FCPA enforcement actions where the DOJ and SEC discussed the failure of internal controls as a basis for FCPA liability. With the questions about the Wal-Mart Board of Directors and their failure to act in the face of allegations of bribery and corruption in the company’s Mexico subsidiary, or contrasting failing to even be aware of the allegations; there may soon be an independent basis for an FCPA violation for a Board’s failure to perform its internal controls function in a best practices compliance program.   Three Key Takeaways GTE compliance internal controls are low hanging fruit, pick them. Compliance internal controls can be both detect and prevent controls. Good compliance internal controls are good for business. For more information on how to improve your internal controls management process, visit this month’s sponsor Workiva at workiva.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As they made clear with several FCPA enforcement actions in 2016, the SEC has placed a renewed interest in the accounting provisions of the FCPA, specifically the internal controls provisions. The BHP enforcement continued this trend, where there was no evidence that bribes were paid or offered in violation of the FCPA, the poor internal compliance controls at BHP led to a $25MM fine. Kara Brockmeyer, the former Chief, FCPA Unit; Division of Enforcement of the SEC, reiterated that the SEC was committed to protecting investors in US public companies and those which list other securities in the US, through enforcement of the accounting provisions, including internal controls provisions of the FCPA. It would seem that the reason is straightforward; a company with rigorous internal compliance controls is better able to prevent, detect and remedy any FCPA violations that may occur. What can you do around the FCPA’s requirements for internal controls and current SEC emphasis? I would suggest that you begin with an exercise where you map the internal controls your company has in place to the indicia of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as set out in the FCPA Guidance. While most compliance practitioners are familiar with the Ten Hallmarks, you may not be as familiar with standards for internal controls. I would suggest that you begin with the COSO 2013 Internal Controls Framework as your starting point.  As a lawyer or compliance practitioner you may not be familiar with all the internal controls that you have in place. This exercise would give you a good opportunity to meet with the heads of Internal Audit, Finance and Accounting (F&A), Treasury or any other function in your company that deals with financial controls. Talk with them about the financial controls you may already have in place. An easy example is employee expense reports. Every company I have ever worked at or even heard about requires expenses for reimbursement to be presented, in documented form on some type of expense reimbursement form. This is mandatory for IRS reporting; so all entities perform this action. See how many controls are in place. Is the employee who submits the expense reimbursement required to sign it? Does his/her immediate supervisor review, approve and sign it? Does any party in the employee’s direct reporting chain review, approve and sign? Do any personnel from accounts payable review and approve that expenses have the requisite receipts attached? Is there any other review in accounts payable? Is there any aggregate review of expense reports? Is there a monetary limit over which additional reviews and approvals occur? Now if an employee has submitted expenses for activities that occurred outside the US are there are any foreign government officials involved? Were those recipients of any such gift, travel or entertainment identified on the expense reimbursement form? Was the business purpose of the meal, gift or entertainment recorded? Can you aggregate the monies spent on any one foreign official or by a single employee in your expense reporting system? All of these are internal controls that can be mapped to the appropriate prong of the Ten Hallmarks or other indicia of your compliance program. You can take this exercise through each of the five objectives under the COSO 2013 Internal Controls Framework and its attendant 17 Principles. From this mapping you can then perform a gap analysis to determine where you might need to implement internal compliance controls into your anti-corruption compliance program. This can lead to remedial steps that you can take. For example, you can recommend procedures be written for all key compliance areas in which there are currently no procedures and your existing procedures can be updated to include compliance issues and clear definition how controls are to be evidenced. Through this you can move from having detect controls in place, to having prevent controls, whenever possible.  As a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner, this is an exercise that you can engage in at no cost. You simply investigate and note what internal controls you have in place and how they may be a part of your anti-corruption efforts going forward. Compliance is a straightforward exercise; this does not mean that it is easy, you do have to work at it so that you will simply not have a paper, “check the box”, program. But using the excuse that you have limited resources is simply an excuse and a rather poor one at that. While the clear lesson from the BHP enforcement action is that you are required to have effective internal controls in place, by engaging in this mapping exercise you can then figure out what you have and, more importantly, what internal compliance controls that you do not have and need to institute. Three Key Takeaways  Learn the internal controls your company currently has in place. Map your compliance internal controls to the COSO 2013 Framework, Use your gap analysis as a basis for remediation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What specifically are internal controls in a compliance program? Internal controls are not only the foundation of a company but are also the foundation of any effective anti-corruption compliance program. The starting point is the FCPA itself, requires the following:  Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)(B)), commonly called the “internal controls” provision, requires issuers to: devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that— (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences ….  The Justice Department (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in their 2012 FCPA Guidance, stated, “Internal controls over financial reporting are the processes used by compa­nies to provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliabil­ity of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. They include various components, such as: a control environment that covers the tone set by the organi­zation regarding integrity and ethics; risk assessments; con­trol activities that cover policies and procedures designed to ensure that management directives are carried out (e.g., approvals, authorizations, reconciliations, and segregation of duties); information and communication; and monitor­ing.” Moreover, “the design of a company’s internal controls must take into account the operational realities and risks attendant to the company’s business, such as: the nature of its products or services; how the products or services get to market; the nature of its work force; the degree of regulation; the extent of its government interaction; and the degree to which it has operations in countries with a high risk of corruption.”  Aaron Murphy, Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Utah and the author of “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Practical Resource for Managers and Executives”, said, “Internal controls are policies, procedures, monitoring and training that are designed to ensure that company assets are used properly, with proper approval and that transactions are properly recorded in the books and records. While it is theoretically possible to have good controls but bad books and records (and vice versa), the two generally go hand in hand – where there are record-keeping violations, an internal controls failure is almost presumed because the records would have been accurate had the controls been adequate.”  Internal controls expert Joe Howell, EVP at Workiva, Inc. has said that internal controls are systematic measures, such as reviews, checks and balances, methods and procedures, instituted by an organization that performs several different functions. These functions include allowing a company to conduct its business in an orderly and efficient manner; to safeguard its assets and resources, to detect and deter errors, fraud, and theft; to assist an organization ensuring the accuracy and completeness of its accounting data; to enable a business to produce reliable and timely financial and management information; and to help an entity to ensure there is adherence to its policies and plans by its employees, applicable third parties and others. Howell adds that internal controls are entity wide; that is, they are not just limited to the accountants and auditors. Howell also notes that for compliance purposes, controls are those measures specifically to provide reasonable assurance any assets or resources of a company cannot be used to pay a bribe. This definition includes diversion of company assets, such as by unauthorized sales discounts or receivables write-offs as well as the distribution of assets.  The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in its 2013 Internal Controls Framework defined internal controls, in its publication entitled “Internal Controls – Integrated Framework”, as follows:  Internal control is a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives relating to operations, reporting, and compliance. This definition reflects certain fundamental concepts. Internal control is:  Geared to the achievement of objectives in one or more categories—operations, reporting, and compliance A process consisting of ongoing tasks and activities - a means to an end, not an end in itself Effected by people - not merely about policy and procedure manuals, systems, and forms, but about people and the actions they take at every level of an organization to affect internal control Able to provide reasonable assurance - but not absolute assurance, to an entity’s senior management and board of directors Adaptable to the entity structure - flexible in application for the entire entity or for a particular subsidiary, division, operating unit, or business process. The Integrated Framework goes on to note, “This definition is intentionally broad. It captures important concepts that are fundamental to how organizations design, implement, and conduct internal control, providing a basis for application across organizations that operate in different entity structures, industries, and geographic regions.”   Why are internal controls important in your compliance program? Two FCPA enforcement actions demonstrate the reason. The first came in late 2013 when the DOJ obtained a criminal plea from Weatherford International (WFT). There were three areas where WFT failed to institute appropriate internal controls. First, around third parties and business transactions, limits of authority and documentation requirements. Second, on effectively evaluating business transactions, including acquisitions and joint ventures (JVs), for corruption risks and to investigate those risks when detected. Finally, around excessive gifts, travel, and entertainment, where such expenses were not adequately vetted to ensure that they were reasonable, bona fide, and properly documented.  The second case involved the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson (S&W). The case did not include a criminal charge filed by the DOJ but a civil matter was prosecuted administratively by the SEC. In its Administrative Order, the SEC stated, “Smith & Wesson failed to devise and maintain sufficient internal controls with respect to its international sales operations. While the company had a basic corporate policy prohibiting the payment of bribes, it failed to implement a reasonable system of controls to effectuate that policy.” Moreover, the company did not “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; transactions are recorded as necessary to maintain accountability for assets, and that access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization”.  The whole concept of internal controls is that companies need to focus on where the risks are, whether they be compliance risks or other, and they need to allocate their limited resources to putting controls in place that address those risks, and in the compliance world, of course, your two big risks are the assets or resources of a company. Not just cash but inventory, fixed assets etc., being used to pay a bribe, and then the second big element would be diversion of company assets, such as unauthorized sales discounts or receivables and write offs, which are used to pay a bribe.  As an exercise, I suggest that you map your existing internal controls to the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program or some other well-known anti-corruption regime to see where control gaps may exist. This will help you to determine whether adequate compliance internal controls are present. From there you can move to see if they are working in practice or ‘functioning’.  Internal controls will only become more important in FCPA enforcement. This month you will learn how to get ahead of the curve.  Three Key Takeaways Effective internal controls are required under the FCPA. Internal controls are a critical part of any best practices compliance program. The Weatherford and Smith & Wesson FCPA enforcement actions demonstrate the enforcement spotlight on internal controls. For more information on how to improve your internal controls management process, visit this month’s sponsor Workiva at workiva.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the Department of Justice’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, Prong 8 Incentive and Disciplinary Measures it states:  Incentive System – How has the company incentivized compliance and ethical behavior? How has the company considered the potential negative compliance implications of its incentives and rewards? Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?  Further, one of the key points that representatives of the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have continually raised when discussing any best practices compliance program; whether based on the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as articulated in their 2012 FCPA Guidance, or some other articulation such as in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement’s (DPA) Attachment C embedded in a compliance program. They continually remind Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners that any best practices compliance program should have incentives  as a part of the program.  The 2012 Guidance is clear that there should be incentives for not only following your own company’s internal Code of Conduct but also doing business the right way, i.e. not engaging in bribery and corruption. On incentives, the Guidance says, “DOJ and SEC recognize that positive incentives can also drive compliant behavior. These incentives can take many forms such as personnel evaluations and promotions, rewards for improving and developing a company’s compliance pro­gram, and rewards for ethics and compliance leadership. Some organizations, for example, have made adherence to compliance a significant metric for management’s bonuses so that compliance becomes an integral part of management’s everyday concern.” But the Guidance also recognizes that incentives need not only be limited to financial rewards as sometime simply acknowledging employees for doing the right thing can be a powerful tool as well.  All of this was neatly summed up in the Guidance with a quote from a speech given in 2004 by Stephen M. Cutler, the then Director, Division of Enforcement, SEC, entitled, “Tone at the Top: Getting It Right”, to the Second Annual General Counsel Roundtable, where Director Cutler said the following: [M]ake integrity, ethics and compliance part of the promotion, compensation and evaluation processes as well. For at the end of the day, the most effective way to communicate that “doing the right thing” is a priority, is to reward it. Conversely, if employees are led to believe that, when it comes to compensation and career advancement, all that counts is short-term profitability, and that cutting ethical corners is an ac­ceptable way of getting there, they’ll perform to that measure. To cite an example from a different walk of life: a college football coach can be told that the graduation rates of his players are what matters, but he’ll know differently if the sole focus of his contract extension talks or the decision to fire him is his win-loss record. All of this demonstrates that incentives can take a wide range of avenues. The oilfield services company Weatherford, annually awards cash bonuses of $10,000 for employees who go above and beyond in the area of ethics and compliance for the company. While some might intone that is to be expected from a company that only recently concluded a multi-year and multi-million dollar enforcement action; if you want emphasize a change on culture, not much says so more loudly than awarding that kind of money to an employee.  While I am sure that being handed a check for $10,000 is quite a nice prize, you can also consider much more mundane methods to incentivize compliance. You can make a compliance evaluation a part of any employee’s overall evaluation for some type of year end discretionary bonus payment. It can be 5%, 10% or even up to 20%. But once you put it in writing, you need to actually follow it. But incentives can be burned into the DNA of a company through the hiring and promotion processes. There should be a compliance component to all senior management hires and promotions up to those august ranks within a company. Your Human Resources (HR) function can be a great aid to your cause in driving the right type of behavior through the design and implementation of such structures. Employees know who gets promoted and why. If someone who is only known for hitting their numbers continually is promoted, however they accomplished this feat will certainly be observed by his or her co-workers. Three Key Takeaways The DOJ evaluation specifically calls out incentives for doing business ethically and in compliance. HR can lead the efforts around incentives. Incentives go beyond financial rewards.   This month’s series is sponsored by Advanced Compliance Solutions and its new service offering the “Compliance Alliance” which is a three-step program that will provide you and your team a background into compliance and the FCPA so you can consider how your product or service fits into the needs of a compliance officer. It includes a FCPA and compliance boot camp, sponsorship of a one-month podcast series, and in-person training. Each section builds on the other and provides your customer service and sales teams with the knowledge they need to have intelligent conversations with compliance officers and decision makers. When the program is complete, your teams will be armed with the knowledge they need to sell and service every new client. Interested parties should contact Tom Fox. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Operationalizing your compliance program can take many shapes and forms. Using the entire risk management process to embed your compliance program within the contours of your organization is an important, key step as it will allow you to have full visibility of your compliance risks through a longer life cycle. Forecasting allows you to consider your business strategy and wed the risks you can foresee. Risk assessments allow you to evaluate and measure known risks. Risk-based monitoring allows you to monitor both the compliance risks you and detect those you do not know, on an ongoing basis.  I think there are several key lessons to be considered by any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner. The first is the process around risk management. Most compliance practitioners understand the need for a risk assessment as it is articulated as Hallmark No. 4 of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. From the FCPA Guidance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said, “Assessment of risk is fundamental to developing a strong compliance program, and is another factor DOJ and SEC evaluate when assessing a company’s compliance program.” In addition to this business case, the FCPA Guidance also specified the enforcement reasons for performing a risk assessment, “DOJ and SEC will give meaningful credit to a company that implements in good faith a comprehensive, risk-based compliance program, even if that program does not pre­vent an infraction in a low risk area because greater atten­tion and resources had been devoted to a higher risk area.” The DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs builds on this.  Yet as compliance evolves and corporate compliance programs become more sophisticated, compliance is seen not as simply a legal prophylactic, but as a business process. Seen in this light, it is clear the risk management process should begin with forecasting as it attempts to estimate future aspects of your business. Locwin noted that companies should be able to say with some degree of authority, “We think the following will happen in the next three months, six months, twelve months, twenty-four months, is really something that the businesses try to wrap their heads around in such a way that they can shunt resources where they think is appropriate in order to meet these future demands.”  By starting with forecasting, a compliance function utilizes risk assessment to consider issues which forecasting did not predict for or issues which the forecasting model raised as a potential outcome which warranted a deeper dive. If you are moving into a new product or sales area and are required to use third-party sales agents, a risk assessment would provide information that a company could use to ameliorate the risks.  Risk-based monitoring follows on from the issues that your risk assessment identified as your highest risks. Locwin said, “Risk-based monitoring tends to look at things on an ongoing basis, and the models that are behind the risk-based modeling, risk-based monitoring models, they’re continuously refined based on incoming data.”  All of these three tools tie back into process management and process improvement. Locwin stated, “There’s always this balance between what’s actually important for our business or for proper execution, versus what’s actually going on in the whole process. If you’re not measuring at a high enough resolution, you’re not capturing a lot of the environmental, market force, external factors that probably are of high leverage to your operations in business that you just don’t know about.”  Locwin tied them together with the following example, “There’s a 30% chance of this abject market failure happening, this product fails, this restaurant site contaminates people, this product doesn’t ship before Christmas, this phone explodes.” If you knew that in advance, the executive committee probably almost everywhere would say, “We have to act, and act now.” That’s where the rubber meets the road and you’ve got to forecast and a contingency in place. A lot of times, there isn’t that level of forecasting done in advance to say, “We think there’s this 30% chance of it occurring, therefore not only do we need a strong contingency plan, but we should expect to have to use it in Quarter 2. It’s right there sitting on everybody’s dashboard all the time.” In other words, it comes down to execution. This means you have to use the risk management tools available to you and when a situation arises, you remediate when required. This is not only where the rubber hits the road but the information and data you garner in the execution phase should be fed back into process loop. From this, you will develop continuous feedback and continuous improvement.  I have gone through this in some detail to emphasize the business process nature that compliance has evolved into as a corporate discipline. By using these techniques, the CCO or compliance practitioner makes the business run more efficiently and at the end of the day, more profitably. The more you can bring these types of insight to a Chief Executive, the more you demonstrate how compliance adds to the bottom line and is not simply a cost center.  Three Key Takeaways The risk management process is an important backbone of operationalizing compliance. You should be able monitor and measure both known and unknown risks. All of these steps help a business to run more efficiently and more profitably.  This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Oversight Systems, Inc. Oversight’s automated transaction monitoring solution, Insights On Demand for FCPA, operationalizes your compliance program. For more information, go to OversightSystems.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Evaluation, most generally, follows the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) seminal Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, released in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. If there is one over-riding theme in the Evaluation, it is the DOJ’s emphasis on operationalizing your compliance program as the questions posed are designed to test how far down your compliance program is incorporated into the very DNA and fabric of your organization. The Evaluation is not simply a restatement of the Ten Hallmarks, as it clearly incorporates the DOJ’s evolution in what constitutes a best practices compliance program over the past 18 months and it certainly builds upon the information put forward in the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program regarding effective compliance programs, most particularly found in Prong 3 Remediation. Three Key Takeaways The Evaluation follows a consistent theme of DOJ pronouncement over the past 18 on to operationalize your compliance program. There is one new area with a focus on root cause analysis and risk assessments. There is a greater consideration of how the CCO is treated and viewed within an organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) very quietly released a document, entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Evaluation), on the Fraud Section website. The document is an 11-part list of questions which encapsulates the DOJ’s most current thinking on what constitutes a best practices compliance program. Within the list are some 46 different questions that a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner can use to benchmark a compliance program. In short, it is an incredibly valuable and most significantly useful resource for every compliance practitioner. The document has one clear theme that I will be exploring this month—you must operationalize your compliance program. The Evaluation, most generally, follows the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) seminal Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, released in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. If there is one over-riding theme in the Evaluation, it is the DOJ’s emphasis on doing compliance as the questions posed are designed to test how far down your compliance program is incorporated into the fabric of your organization. The Evaluation is not simply a restatement of the Ten Hallmarks, as it clearly incorporates the DOJ’s evolution in what constitutes a best practices compliance program, and it certainly builds upon the information put forward in the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program regarding effective compliance programs, most particularly found in Prong 3 Remediation. Once again, I detect the hand of DOJ Compliance Counsel Hui Chen in not only helping the DOJ to understand what constitutes an effective compliance program but also providing solid information to the greater compliance community on this score.   Three Key Takeaways The DOJ Evaluation requires you to operationalize your compliance program. The DOJ Evaluation makes clear compliance is a business process. The DOJ Evaluation is significant for what it does not focus on, legal solutions or even legal language. This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Oversight Systems, Inc. Oversight’s automated transaction monitoring solution, Insights On Demand for FCPA, operationalizes your compliance program. For more information, go to OversightSystems.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Matt Kelly and myself take a deep dive into the Department of Justice (DOJ) recent release, entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Evaluation), which went up on the Fraud Section website on February 8. The document is an 11-part list of questions which encapsulates the DOJ’s most current thinking on what constitutes a best practices compliance program. Within the list are some 46 different questions that a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner can use to benchmark a compliance program. In short, it is an incredibly valuable and most significantly useful resource for every compliance practitioner. The Evaluation, most generally, follows the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) seminal Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, released in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. If there is one over-riding theme in the Evaluation, it is the DOJ’s emphasis on doing compliance as the questions posed are designed to test how far down your compliance program is incorporated into the fabric of your organization. The Evaluation is not simply a restatement of the Ten Hallmarks, as it clearly incorporates the DOJ’s evolution in what constitutes a best practices compliance program, and it certainly builds upon the information put forward in the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program regarding effective compliance programs, most particularly found in Prong 3 Remediation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Matt Kelly and myself take a deep dive into the Department of Justice (DOJ) recent release, entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Evaluation), which went up on the Fraud Section website on February 8. The document is an 11-part list of questions which encapsulates the DOJ’s most current thinking on what constitutes a best practices compliance program. Within the list are some 46 different questions that a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner can use to benchmark a compliance program. In short, it is an incredibly valuable and most significantly useful resource for every compliance practitioner. The Evaluation, most generally, follows the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) seminal Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, released in the 2012 FCPA Guidance. If there is one over-riding theme in the Evaluation, it is the DOJ’s emphasis on doing compliance as the questions posed are designed to test how far down your compliance program is incorporated into the fabric of your organization. The Evaluation is not simply a restatement of the Ten Hallmarks, as it clearly incorporates the DOJ’s evolution in what constitutes a best practices compliance program, and it certainly builds upon the information put forward in the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program regarding effective compliance programs, most particularly found in Prong 3 Remediation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Doty, Acting Commissioner of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was once asked if the Board or its sub-committee which handles audits was a part of a company’s internal financial controls. He answered that yes, he believed that was one of the roles of an Audit Committee or full Board. I had never thought of the Board as an internal control but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was an important insight for any Chief Compliance Officer or compliance practitioner as it also applies as a compliance internal control. In the FCPA Guidance, in the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, there are two specific references to the obligations of a Board. The first in Hallmark No. 1 , which states, “Within a business organization, compliance begins with the board of directors and senior executives setting the proper tone for the rest of the company.” The second is found under Hallmark No. 3, entitled “Oversight, Autonomy and Resources”, where it discusses that the CCO should have “direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors (e.g., the audit committee).” Further, under the US Sentencing Guidelines, the Board must exercise reasonable oversight on the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Prosecution Standards posed the following queries: (1) Do the Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? and (2) Are Directors provided information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment? Doty’s remarks drove home to me the absolute requirement for Board participation in any best practices or even effective anti-corruption compliance program. Board liability for its failure to perform its assigned function in any compliance program is well known. David Stuart, an attorney with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, noted that FCPA compliance issues can lead to personal liability for directors, as both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and DOJ have been “very vocal about their interest in identifying the highest-level individuals within the organization who are responsible for the tone, culture, or weak internal controls that may contribute to, or at least fail to prevent, bribery and corruption”. He added that based upon the SEC’s enforcement action against two senior executives at Nature’s Sunshine Products, “Under certain circumstances, I could see the SEC invoking the same provisions against audit committee members—for instance, for failing to oversee implementation of a compliance program to mitigate risk of bribery”. It would not be too far a next step for the SEC to invoke the same provisions against audit committee members who do not actively exercise oversight of an ongoing compliance program. Further, the SEC has made clear that it believes a Board should take a more active role in overseeing the management of risk within a company. The SEC has promulgated Regulation SK 407 under which each company must make a disclosure regarding the Board’s role in risk oversight which “may enable investors to better evaluate whether the board is exercising appropriate oversight of risk.” If this disclosure is not made, it could be a securities law violation and subject the company, which fails to make it, to fines, penalties or profit disgorgement. I believe that a Board must not only have a corporate compliance program in place but actively oversee that function. Further, if a company’s business plan includes a high-risk proposition, there should be additional oversight. In other words, there is an affirmative duty to ask the tough questions. But it is more than simply having a compliance program in place. The Board must exercise appropriate oversight of the compliance program and indeed the compliance function. The Board needs to ask the hard questions and be fully informed of the company’s overall compliance strategy going forward. A Board’s oversight is part of effective compliance controls, then the failure to do so may result in something far worse than bad governance. Such inattention could directly lead to a FCPA violation and could even form the basis of an independent SOX violation as to the Board. Three Key Takeaways A Board must engage in active oversight. A Board should review the design of internal controls on a regular basis. Failure to do so could form the basis for an independent legal violation under SOX. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Resources, issued a paper entitled “Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight” (the OIG Guidance). It provides an excellent road map for thinking about how to structure a Compliance Committee for your Board and a Board’s obligations.  As an introduction, the OIG Guidance states that a Board must act in good faith around its obligations regarding compliance. This means that there must be both a corporation information and reporting system and that such reporting mechanisms provide appropriate information to a Board. It stated, “The existence of a corporate reporting system is a key compliance program element, which not only keeps the Board informed of the activities of the organization, but also enables an organization to evaluate and respond to issues of potentially illegal or otherwise inappropriate activity.” The OIG Guidance sets out four areas of Board oversight and review of a compliance function; “(1) roles of, and relationships between, the organization’s audit, compliance, and legal departments; (2) mechanism and process for issue-reporting within an organization; (3) approach to identifying regulatory risk; and (4) methods of encouraging enterprise-wide accountability for achievement of compliance goals and objectives.” While noting that a corporate compliance function should promote the prevention, detection and remediation of compliance violations, the OIG Guidance goes on to state that an organization’s Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) “should neither be counsel for the provider, nor be subordinate in function or position to counsel or the legal department, in any manner.” Rather the Board must ensure the CCO and compliance function have resources to fulfill their assigned role within an organization and access to the Board. The Board should evaluate and discuss how management works together to address risk, including the role of each in:  identifying compliance risks, investigating compliance risks and avoiding duplication of effort, identifying and implementing appropriate corrective actions and decision-making, and communicating between the various functions throughout the process.  A key component of Board oversight is through the flow of information. The OIG Guidance says, “The Board should set and enforce expectations for receiving particular types of compliance-related information from various members of management. The Board should receive regular reports regarding the organization’s risk mitigation and compliance efforts—separately and independently”. These reports can come to the Board via a variety of reporting mechanisms; regular Board meetings, special Executive Sessions where the Board meets with the CCO or compliance leadership outside of the presence of senior management and ad hoc communications from the CCO. All of these help create a “continuous expectation of open dialogue” which is paramount for proper Board oversight. Of course, if a serious compliance issue arises, it needs to be communicated directly, and in a timely manner, to the Board. But in addition to setting the expectations for the flows of information, a Board must also set expectations for holding senior management accountable for areas such as compliance. This can be through the assessment of “individual, department, or facility-level performance or consistency in executing the compliance program” and using this information to payout or withhold discretionary based bonuses “based upon compliance and quality outcomes.” The OIG Guidance also notes, “Some companies have made participation in annual incentive programs contingent on satisfactorily meeting annual compliance goals. Others have instituted employee and executive compensation claw-back/recoupment provisions if compliance metrics are not met.” However the key component is that “Through a system of defined compliance goals and objectives against which performance may be measured and incentivized, organizations can effectively communicate the message that everyone is ultimately responsible for compliance.” A Board also needs to have regular reports on the risks that any organization may face. This means keeping abreast of “relevant and emerging regulatory risks, the role and functioning of an organization’s compliance program in the face of those risks and the flow and elevation of reporting of potential issues and problems to senior management.” The OIG Guidance speaks to technological solutions when it says, “Some Boards use tools such as dashboards—containing key financial, operational and compliance indicators to assess risk, performance against budgets, strategic plans, policies and procedures, or other goals and objectives—in order to strike a balance between too much and too little information. For instance, Board quality committees can work with management to create the content of the dashboards with a goal of identifying and responding to risks and improving quality of care.” Moreover, a Board should also mandate that the company’s compliance function have the proper tools in place to facilitate compliance reporting internally. It states, “Boards should also consider establishing a risk-based reporting system, in which those responsible for the compliance function provide reports to the Board when certain risk-based criteria are met. The Board should be assured that there are mechanisms in place to ensure timely reporting of suspected violations and to evaluate and implement remedial measures. These tools may also be used to track and identify trends in organizational performance against corrective action plans developed in response to compliance concerns.” Ultimately a Board should drive home of the message of compliance as “a way of life” so that it permeates into the DNA of a health care organization. For if a Board can help drive compliance into the fabric of an organization, it will have done more than simply fulfill its legal obligations starting in the Caremark decision and going forward. The Board will have helped to make the entire organization more compliance-centric and when a Board can help to facilitate such a change in attitudes, it will have moved the organization several steps down the road of doing business in compliance with relevant laws and issues.   The OIG Guidance is an excellent review for not only compliance professionals and others in the health care industry but a good primer for Boards around their own duties under a best practices compliance program. The US Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, the “OIG voluntary compliance program guidance documents, and OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs) can be used as baseline assessment tools for Boards and management in determining what specific functions may be necessary to meet the requirements of an effective compliance program. The Guidelines “offer incentives to organizations to reduce and ultimately eliminate criminal conduct by providing a structural foundation from which an organization may self-police its own conduct through an effective compliance and ethics program.” The compliance program guidance documents were developed by OIG to encourage the development and use of internal controls to monitor adherence to applicable statutes, regulations, and program requirements.”  Three Key Takeaways Information flow up to the Board is critical. Compliance should be institutionalized in your company as a way of life. A Board needs to consider all risks. For more information, check out my book Doing Compliance: Design, Create and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program, which is available by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Case Law As to the specific role of ‘Best Practices’ in the area of general compliance and ethics, one can look to Delaware corporate law for guidance. The case of In Re Caremark International Inc. was the first case to hold that a Board’s obligation “includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure that a corporate information and reporting system, which the board concludes is adequate, exists, and that failure to do so under some circumstances may, in theory at least, render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards.” In the case of Stone v. Ritter, the Supreme Court of Delaware expanded on the Caremark decision by establishing two important principles. First, the Court held that the Caremark standard is the appropriate standard for director duties with respect to corporate compliance issues. Second, the Court found that there is no duty of good faith that forms a basis, independent of the duties of care and loyalty, for director liability. Rather, Stone v. Ritter holds that the question of director liability turns on whether there is a "sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight – such as an utter failure to attempt to assure a reasonable information and reporting system exists.” According to Haynes and Boone in its publication, “Corporate Governance and the Role of the Board” a director’s business decisions generally qualify for protection by the “business judgment rule.” Under the business judgment rule, courts presume that directors making business decisions acted on an informed basis, in good faith, and with the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the corporation. In lawsuits brought against directors brought by shareholders, courts applying the business judgment rule will determine only whether the directors making the decision (i) were free from conflicts of interest, (ii) appropriately informed themselves before taking the action, and (iii) acted after due consideration of all relevant information that was reasonably available. Under the business judgment rule, the board’s action will not subject board members to liability if the action or decision of the directors can be attributed to any rational business purpose. Directors that meet the criteria of the business judgment rule do not have to worry about having their business decisions second-guessed by a court, even where their decisions result in corporate losses. FCPA Guidance and US Sentencing Guidelines A Board’s duty under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is well known. In the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) FCPA Guidance, under the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, there are two specific references to the obligations of a Board. The first in Hallmark No. 1, entitled “Commitment from Senior Management and a Clearly Articulated Policy Against Corruption”, states “Within a business organization, compliance begins with the board of directors and senior executives setting the proper tone for the rest of the company.” The second is found under Hallmark No. 3 entitled “Oversight, Autonomy and Resources”, where it discusses that the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) should have “direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors (e.g., the audit committee).” Further, under the US Sentencing Guidelines, the Board must exercise reasonable oversight on the effectiveness of a company’s compliance program. The DOJ’s Prosecution Standards posed the following queries: (1) Do the Directors exercise independent review of a company’s compliance program? and (2) Are Directors provided information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment? There is one other issue regarding the Board and risk management, including FCPA risk management, which should be noted. It appears that the SEC desires Boards to take a more active role in overseeing the management of risk within a company. The SEC has promulgated Regulation SK 407 under which each company must make a disclosure regarding the Board’s role in risk oversight which “may enable investors to better evaluate whether the board is exercising appropriate oversight of risk.” If this disclosure is not made, it could be a securities law violation and subject the company, which fails to make it, to fines, penalties or profit disgorgement. From the Delaware cases, I believe that a Board must not only have a corporate compliance program in place but actively oversee that function. Further, if a company’s business plan includes a high-risk proposition, there should be additional oversight. In other words, there is an affirmative duty to ask the tough questions. The specific obligations set out regarding the FCPA drive home these general legal obligations down to the specific level of the statute. Three Key Takeaways The Delaware courts have led the way with the Caremark and Stone v. Ritter decisions. Note the obligations of the Board under the 10 Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program. The US Sentencing Guidelines also require Board involvement and oversight. For more information, check out my book Doing Compliance: Design, Create and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program, which is available by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As they made clear with several FCPA enforcement actions in 2016, the SEC has placed a renewed interest in the accounting provisions of the FCPA, specifically the internal controls provisions. The BHP enforcement continued this trend, where there was no evidence that bribes were paid or offered in violation of the FCPA,  the poor internal compliance controls at BHP led to a $25MM fine. Indeed Kara Brockmeyer, Chief, FCPA Unit; Division of Enforcement of the SEC, reiterated that the SEC was committed to protecting investors in US public companies and those which list other securities in the US, through enforcement of the accounting provisions, including internal controls provisions of the FCPA. It would seem that the reason is straightforward; a company with rigorous internal compliance controls is better able to prevent, detect and remedy any FCPA violations that may occur. What can you do around the FCPA’s requirements for internal controls and current SEC emphasis? I would suggest that you begin with an exercise where you map the internal controls your company has in place to the indicia of the Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, as set out in the FCPA Guidance. While most compliance practitioners are familiar with the Ten Hallmarks, you may not be as familiar with standards for internal controls. I would suggest that you begin with the COSO 2013 Framework as your starting point. As a lawyer or compliance practitioner you may not be familiar with all the internal controls that you have in place. This exercise would give you a good opportunity to meet with the heads of Internal Audit, Finance and Accounting (F&A), Treasury or any other function in your company that deals with financial controls. Talk with them about the financial controls you may already have in place. An easy example is employee expense reports. Every company I have ever worked at or even heard about requires expenses for reimbursement to be presented, in documented form on some type of expense reimbursement form. This is mandatory for IRS reporting; so all entities perform this action. See how many controls are in place. Is the employee who submits the expense reimbursement required to sign it? Does his/her immediate supervisor review, approve and sign it? Does any party in the employee’s direct reporting chain review, approve and sign? Does anyone from accounts payable review and approve, both for accuracy and to make sure that all referenced expenses are properly receipted? Is there any other review in accounts payable? Is there any aggregate review of expense reports? Is there a monetary limit over which additional reviews and approvals occur? Now if an employee has submitted expenses for activities that occurred outside the US are there are any foreign government officials involved? Were those employees identified on the expense reimbursement form? Was the business purpose of the meal, gift or other hospitality recorded? Can you aggregate the monies spent on any one foreign official or by a single employee in your expense reporting system? All of these are internal controls that can be mapped to the appropriate prong of the Ten Hallmarks or other indicia of your compliance program. You can take this exercise through each of the five objectives under the COSO 2013 Framework and its attendant 17 Principles. From this mapping you can then perform a gap analysis to determine where you might need to implement internal compliance controls into your anti-corruption compliance program. This can lead to remedial steps that you can take. For example you can recommend procedures be written for all key compliance areas in which there are currently no procedures and your existing procedures can be updated to include compliance issues and clear definition how controls are to be evidenced. Through this you can move from having detect controls in place, to having prevent controls, whenever possible. As a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner, this is an exercise that you can engage in at no cost. You simply investigate and note what internal controls you have in place and how they may be a part of your anti-corruption efforts going forward. As I said last week, compliance is a straightforward exercise. This does not mean that it is easy; you do have to work at it so that you will simply not have a paper, “check the box”, program. But using the excuse that you have limited resources is simply an excuse and a rather poor one at that. While the clear lesson from the BHP enforcement action is that you are required to have effective internal controls in place, by engaging in this mapping exercise you can then figure out what you have and, more importantly, what internal compliance controls that you do not have and need to institute. Three Key Takeaways  Learn the internal controls your company currently has in place. Map your compliance internal controls to the COSO 2013 Framework, Use your gap analysis as a basis for remediation. For more information, check out my book Doing Compliance: Design, Create and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program, which is available by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) and compliance practitioners struggle with metrics to demonstrate revenue generation. Most of the time, such functions are simply viewed as non-revenue generating cost drags on business. This may lead to compliance functions being severely reduced in this downturn. However I believe such cuts would be far from short-sighted; they would actually cost energy companies far more in the short and long term. In an economic downturn, I see two increasing compliance risks for companies. The first is that companies will attempt to reduce their costs by cutting their compliance personnel. A tangent but equally important component of this will be that companies that do not invest the monies needed to beef up their oversight through monitoring or other mechanisms are setting themselves up for serious compliance failures. Moreover, what will be the pressure on the business folks of such companies to ‘get the deal done’? Further, if there is a 10% to 30% overall employee reduction, what additional pressures will be on those employees remaining to make their numbers or face the same consequences as their former co-workers? I think both of these scenarios are fraught with increased compliance risks. For companies to engage in behaviors as I have outlined above would certainly bring them into conflict with the Ten Hallmarks of an effective compliance program as set out in the FCPA Guidance. For instance on resources, the FCPA Guidance does not say in a time of less income, when your compliance risk remains the same or increases, you should cut your compliance function. Indeed’ it intones the opposite, when stating, “Those individuals must have appropriate authority within the organization, adequate autonomy from management, and sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively.” The FCPA Guidance speaks to an analysis from the DOJ side, which would presumably be a criminal side review. For instance, if a company cuts its compliance staff while its risk profile has not decreased, does this provide the required intent to commit a criminal act under the FCPA? Moreover, who would be the guilty party under such an analysis? Would it be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who ultimately decides we need a fixed percentage cut of employees or simply a raw number to be laid off? How about the department head (as in the CCO) who is told to cut your staff 10% or we will make the cuts for you? Or is it a company’s Human Resources (HR) department? But there is a second reason that I believe that energy companies risk profiles will increase in this industry-specific downturn. Unfortunately it will come from those employees who survive the lay offs. They will be under increased pressure to do the jobs of the laid-off folks so there will be a greater chance that something could slip through the cracks. If you are already working full time at one job and one, two or three other employees in your department are laid-off, which job is going to get priority? Will you only be able to put out fires or will you be able to accomplish what most business folks think is an administrative task?   But more than the extra work the survivors will have laid upon them will be the implicit message that some companies senior management may well lay down, that being Get the Deal Done. If economic times are tough, senior management will be looking even more closely at the sales numbers of employees. The sales incentives could very well move from a question of what will my bonus be if I close this transaction to one of will I be fired if I do not close this transaction. If senior management makes clear that it is bring in more business or the highway, employees will get that message. Once again, where would the DOJ look for to find intent? Would it be the person out in the field who believed he was told that he or she either brought in twice as much work since there were half as many employees left after lay-offs? Would it be the middle manager who is more closely reviewing the sales numbers and sending out email reminders that if sales do not increase, there may well have to be more cuts? What about the CEO who simply raises one eyebrow and says we need to hunker down and get the job done?  Three Key Takeaways   Less personnel does not equal less risk. Do less with less. Increase you use of technological solutions to make your compliance program more efficient. For more information, check out my book Doing Compliance: Design, Create and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program, which is available by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You should work to create a culture of data in your compliance program. This comes from an understanding that data is a product, which you can consume internally in the compliance function. Your data is a corporate asset so why not use it. That is a key point that you should recognize. Yet data is not simply big or even scary. It is information that you can use in helping you make better decisions. The CCO needs to find a way to deliver compliance analytics in a manner that is timely within your company’s everyday decision-making calculus.  One of the biggest misunderstandings about using data is that compliance practitioners tend to be myopic. They only look at individual data when it is more useful to know what a population of people are doing. As a CCO how many times have you heard something along the lines of “If we look we might find something”. This defensive attitude can keep you from making use of some of the most useful information to you, your own data. The more transparency there was involving data, the less they thought of it as a liability.  A key insight for the compliance function the democratization of data access has allowed companies to become much more data oriented in decision making. So do not hoard your data. This means more than simply using it but also making it available to the business folks to help them to make their decisions more in compliance. This transparency will not only improve the quality of your decision making but it should also allow you to bring more robust compliance analysis into the fabric of your organization.  Innovation in compliance is really nothing new. Best practices compliance programs have evolved from as far back as the Metcalf and Eddy enforcement action, through Opinion Release 04-02, to the current Ten Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program as set out in the FCPA Guidance. Even within these frameworks there has always been evolution of compliance. This is to be embraced because the consequences of not doing so are too catastrophic.  All of this means that compliance should use data to help establish a culture of innovation in the compliance function. Every CCO should be looking beyond today. Arnold & Porter LLP partner Stephen Martin has long advocated a one, three and five year compliance program outlook that you should regularly review and update. From the data perspective you should consider what this might mean from a technological perspective and how you can enable that transformation going forward.  Key Takeaways  Look at aggregations of data to spot trends. The more transparency you have in data the less potential there is for liability going forward. Data is a product and compliance should consume data. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode I review Hallmark 9 - Continuous Improvement: Periodic Testing and Review. This podcast series is produced in a 10 article series. To read more, check out my blog post series on Hallmark 9. For more information on this Hallmark, check out my book Doing Compliance: Design, Create and Implement an Effective Anti-Corruption Compliance Program, which is available through Compliance Week by clicking here.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices