Podcasts about vimpelcom

Let us know your thoughts. Send us a Text Message. Follow me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedInEpisode Title:

The holidays are upon us, but sanctions never sleep. This week, 9fin's Bianca Boorer has been in court covering Veon's creative use of UK restructuring law to pay down its Russian bondholders and cut ties with VimpleCom, its Moscow subsidiary. She explains this complex transaction for Will Caiger-Smith.

Chipmaker Nexperia uit Nijmegen is het nieuwste slachtoffer van de wereldwijde chipoorlog. Het bedrijf moet van de Britse regering een recent aangekochte chipfabriek in Wales weer afstaan omdat het een Chinese eigenaar heeft, vertelt Sandra Olsthoorn. Lees: Chipmaker Nexperia wordt meegezogen in oplaaiende chipoorlog en De Amerikaanse druk op Nederlands kabinet en ASML wordt steeds ondiplomatieker Het Openbaar Ministerie eist een boete van €243.000 voor EY. Het accountantskantoor zou smeergeldbetalingen aan de dochter van de Oezbeekse president van telecombedrijf Vimpelcom niet hebben gemeld bij de opsporingsinstanties. Volgens redacteur zakelijke dienstverlening Martijn Pols had EY een aantal jaar geleden de zaak kunnen schikken voor een veel hoger bedrag. Lees: OM eist tonnen boete voor missen smeergeld Vimpelcom door accountant EY De klimaattop in Egypte nadert het einde, maar de onderhandelingen zijn nog lang niet afgerond. Klimaatredacteur Orla McDonald is in Sharm-El-Sheikh en ziet al veel mensen vertrekken, terwijl het slotakkoord er naar verwachting pas zaterdag of zondag is.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tom Fox and Michael DeBernardis go in-depth about the bribery scandals of three big names in telecom, MTS, VimpelCom, and Telia; Ericsson's shady deals in multiple countries, how knowing high-risk countries and the beneficiaries of companies can save you from trouble, and the importance of visibility for compliance professionals. ▶️ The Bribery Trilogy in Telecom with Tom Fox and Michael DeBernardis Key points discussed in the episode: ✔️ Tom Fox gives a brief background on the VimpelCom case. He points out how the company, including MTS and Telia, were all tied up with the schemes of Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of a former president in Uzbekistan. ✔️ The DOJ and the SEC are confident in tackling companies taking advantage of “shell companies” and getting involved with corrupt government officials. There was malicious intent on the companies' sides regardless of the rank of the person involved. ✔️ Tom Fox describes the Telia case. Michael DeBernardis points out that the difference between the outcomes of Telia, MTS, and VimpelCom's cases was the penalties. Cooperation from Telia and Vimpelcom garnered significant reductions. ✔️ Tom Fox lays out the MTS case. Even when violations were found in Kolorit's purchase, MTS higher-ups presented excuses that the compliance team failed to argue. The control environment for transparency has since improved post-prosecution. ✔️ Michael DeBernardis emphasizes the risk behind unidentified beneficial owners. VimpelCom, Telia, and MTS had full knowledge of their schemes. But the story is a lot more muddied and complex to the ears of the board and compliance professionals. ✔️ Tom Fox retells the Ericsson case, illustrating it as not just a corrupt third-party, paid-for entertainment, or donations. The imagination only limits the depths where companies explore in weaving the most intricate schemes. Michael DeBernardis attributes this to enterprise-wide failure. ✔️ Knowing the high-risk countries can save your company from trouble. Once you start paying bribes, you're stuck. The receiving party already has claws on you and will threaten to report to US authorities if you attempt to exit. Michael DeBernardis adds that despite these cases being beyond US soil, companies won't be able to challenge them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have a podcast (or do you want to)? Join the only network dedicated to compliance, risk management, and business ethics, the Compliance Podcast Network. For more information, contact Tom Fox at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Texas Tax rate at 80% of 8.25%

Follow and Connect with me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedIn. Episode Title:

Over the past few months, we’ve seen a public tussle between Georgian regulatory firms and a Azeri company called NEQSOL which acquired 49% of Caucasus Online, a Georgian telecommunications company. How does this deal affect Armenian national security given that a significant portion of Armenian internet traffic goes through Georgia (including Caucasus Online).Topics:- Background and formulation of the telecoms market- Azerbaijani company’s stake in Georgia’s Caucasus Online- National Security issues related to telecommunications- What can be done to beef up quality of Armenia’s external communications accessGuest: David SandukhchyanHosts:- Asbed Bedrossian- Hovik Manucharyan

Next, consider a couple of landmark failures at the Board level around bribery and corruption. VimpelCom Ltd. In 2015 (now Veon Ltd.), the DOJ alleged that Dutch telecom VimpelCom sought to enter the telecom market through the acquisition of a local player, Unitel, as an entrée into the Uzbekistan market. Unitel made clear to VimpelCom that to have access to, obtain and retain business in the Uzbeki telecom space, VimpelCom would have to, according to the DPA, “regularly pay Foreign Officials millions of dollars” to Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the then President of the country. VimpelCom also acquired another entity Butzel, that was at least partially owned by an Uzbeki government official, who hid their interest through a shell company, which was known to VimpelCom. VimpelCom did not articulate a legitimate business reason for the deal and paid $60 million for Buztel. Ultimately, VimpelCom agreed to pay approximately $800 million in fines for these activities in 2016.  BizJet. Another FCPA enforcement action involved the Tulsa-based company BizJet International Sales and Support Inc. (BizJet), which had four senior executives convicted for their participation in a bribery scheme. But this case also involved the Board of Directions. In the Criminal Information it stated that in November 2005: …at a Board of Directors meeting of the BizJet Board, Executive A and Executive B discussed with the Board that the decision of where an aircraft is sent for maintenance work is generally made by the potential customer’s director of maintenance or chief pilot, that these individuals are demanding $30,000 to $40,000 in commissions, and that BizJet would pay referral fees in order to gain market share. In both cases, this is where the rubber hits the road. If a company is willing to commit bribery and engage in corruption to secure business, no amount of doing compliance is going to help. If senior management is ready, willing and able to lie, cheat and steal, the Board is the final backstop to prevent such conduct. Both the VimpelCom and BizJet Boards sorely failed in their compliance duties. Three key takeaways: Board liability will be severe based upon similar conduct going forward. Board members must critically challenge management on its conduct. The Board is the ultimate backstop against bribery and corruption.

With years of international experience in Intellectual Property, Entertainment, Social Media and Internet law under his belt, Alexander Loveyko, is a New York-licensed attorney in the Miami office of the IP and Entertainment law firm ChaseLawyers℠. He has advised major international brands during his career, including the Dutch-based mega-communications provider VimpelCom and one of the most famous IP brands in the world – the Russian animation sensation “Masha and the Bear”.

Join me on this episode of The Treasury Career Corner Podcast, where I speak to Ramon Tolk, the Senior Director of Treasury at Avery Dennison. Ramon is responsible for treasury and FX management and loans for Avery Dennison and is based in The Netherlands. His career has taken him from the world of auditing, to consultancy to treasury. He is also a frequent speaker at conferences and has written several articles on treasury topics and is sought after as a guest lecturer for bachelor and master’s courses on treasury. While you may have used Avery labels, what you may not know is that the Avery Dennison Corporation is actually a global Fortune 500 company in materials science which specialises not just in labelling, but in the design and manufacture a range of functional materials. For over eight decades, they have been manufacturing products that are used in almost every major industry. Today they make a range of physical and digital products; ranging from radio-frequency identification (RFID), pressure-sensitive materials for labels and graphic applications; tapes and other bonding solutions for industrial, medical and retail applications and tags and embellishments for apparel. Headquartered in Glendale, California, the company employs approximately 30,000 employees in more than 50 countries. Their reported sales in 2018 were $7.2 billion. Today they strive to find innovative, intelligent and sustainable solutions for customers across the globe. Prior to working for Avery Dennison, Ramon started as in auditing at Deloitte before progressing to the position of Senior Manager, heading up the Regulatory and Accounting team within Treasury & Capital Markets for a range of international companies. He then consulted at Numico and managed their transition to Danone. In 2012, Ramon moved to VimpelCom where he set up the treasury management systems, controls, and compliance processes as well as dealing with corporate finance strategy. He believes being able to have a broad knowledge in your field and sharing that knowledge with others is the key to a successful treasury career. If you want to get the ‘bigger picture’ of what a global treasury career could be, then make sure you listen in to Ramon’s interview. On the podcast we discussed… How Ramon’s auditing background helped him in his treasury career Why Ramon made the switch from consulting to corporate Dealing with the complexity of emerging markets and shareholders at VimpelCom Making the move to Avery Dennison and being responsible for treasury, FX and a global cash management project Why he believes in sharing treasury knowledge on the speaking circuit How always seeking continuous improvement is the key to Ramon’s success Are you interested in pursuing a career within Treasury? Whether you’ve recently graduated, or you want to search for new job opportunities to help develop your treasury career, The Treasury Recruitment Company can help you in your search for the perfect job. send us your CV (https://treasuryrecruitment.com/jobs) and let us help you in your next career move! If you’re enjoying the show please rate and review us on whatever podcast app you listen to us on, for Apple Podcasts click here (http://www.treasurycareercorner.com/itunes/) !

I denne episoden ser jeg på erstatningskravet som Jo Lunder har reist mot staten, etter urettmessig straffeforfølgning. Lunder ble etterforsket for medvirkning til korrupsjon i forbindelse med teleselskapet Vimpelcom, som han ledet en periode. I forbindelse med etterforskningen ble Lunder varetektsfengslet. Da Økokrim valgte å ikke ta ut tiltale, fremmet Lunder krav om erstatning på en halv milliard kroner. Kravet reiser for det første erstatningsrettslige spørsmål, blant annet om skadelidtes tapsbegrensningsplikt. I tillegg kan en vurdere saken opp mot arbeidsrettslige problemstillinger som jeg tidligere har omtalt i Vloggen "Dømt til fravær". Lunder ble representert av advokat Cato Schiøtz fra advokatfirmaet Schjødt. Statens sivilrettsforvaltning avviste Lunders krav, og Lunder har uttalt at han vil gå til søksmål for å få tilkjent erstatning.

In a stunning resolution to one of the longest running bribery, corruption and money-laundering sagas on the international stage, the Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission both announced settlement of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action against the Russian telecom company, Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (MTS). (See both the DOJ Press Release and SEC Press Release.) The FCPA enforcement action came in at $850 million which makes it Number 3 in the Top 10 of all-time FCPA settlements. This podcast opens a multi-part series will examine the background facts of the case, provide a detailed review of the bribery schemes involved, the compliance failures of MTS and its actions during the investigation which contributed to the size of the penalty, the individual criminal prosecutions brought by the Department of Justice as a part of this action and the key lessons learned by the compliance practitioner. In this Part 1, I begin with a review of the background facts, the parties and players and the fine and penalty of the MTS Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action. The enforcement action was the third involving the same individual from the same country. That individual was Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the former President of Uzbekistan. If that name sounds familiar to compliance professionals it is because she was also involved in the receipt of bribes paid in two other Top 10 FCPA enforcement actions; VimpelCom (now VEON Ltd.) and Telia Company AB. Contemporaneously with FCPA enforcement action involving MTS, there was a criminal indictment filed against Karimova and Bekhzod Akhmedov, a former MTS executive based in Uzbekistan. Akhmedov was charged with violating the FCPA for paying bribes to or for the benefit of Karimova and Karimova was charged she with laundering the money received as bribes. The documents which are the subject of this series are:MTS Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA);MTS Criminal Information (MTS Information);SEC Cease and Desist Order (Order);Karimova and Akhmedov Indictment (Indictment);Kolorit Dizayn Ink LLC Plea Agreement (Plea Agreement); andKolorit Dizayn Ink Information (Kolorit Information);  DOJ Press Release andSEC Press Release.For additional reading see the blog post, "MTS FCPA Settlement and Karimova Indictment: Part I-Introduction". Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  There is nothing like an internal whistleblower report about a FCPA violation, the finding of such an issue or (even worse) a subpoena from the DOJ to trigger the Board of Directors and senior management attention to the compliance function and the company’s compliance program. Such an event can trigger much gnashing of teeth and expressions of outrage followed immediately by proclamations “We are an ethical company.” However it may well be the time for a very serious reality check.  The DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs focuses this question in Prong 7 with the following: Response to Investigations –What has been the process for responding to investigative findings? You may find yourself in the position that you will have to have some very frank discussions about what to expect in terms of costs and time outlays. While much of these discussions will focus on the investigative process and those costs, these discussions will allow you to begin to talk about remediation going forward and begin to explain why money must be budgeted for the remediation process.  One of the things rarely considered is how the investigation triggers the remediation process and what the relationship is between the two. When issues arise warranting an investigation that would rise to the Board of Directors level and potentially require disclosure to the government, there is usually a flurry of attention and activity. Everyone wants to know what is going on. Russ Berland, the Chief Compliance Officer at Dematic Inc. has noted, “for that short moment in time, you have everyone’s full attention.” Yet it can still be “a tricky place, because you get your fifteen minutes to really get everyone’s full attention, and then from then on, you’re fighting with everybody else for their attention, just like the normal things in business life. It’s, they’re coming in and saying, “Okay, here’s the situation as we know it now, there is an investigation path, and corresponding to that, here’s what we think is the remediation path and some outlines of what it’s going to take,” often with some dollar signs attached to it.”  You need to explain the costs to the Board and senior management. As Berland said, you need to be upfront and candid in firmly stating, “For us to get to this place, this is what it’s going to cost.” Moreover, you need to be able to show how some companies paid very large amounts, not just in the eventual fine and penalty but also in other costs. Berland went on to say, “We want to show you how people have lost money by having to write big checks, because they didn’t take this seriously, and saved money, because they didn’t have to write as big a check, because they took this very seriously, and your return on investment here is going to be very high if you do this well.” This is easier with the information that was provided in the 2016 DOJ Pilot Program around FCPA enforcement as it demonstrated how much discount a company can receive below the minimum range of the Sentencing Guidelines for remediation.   One of the most difficult parts is that the investigation is often done in a way in which the investigators want to maintain as tight a control over the information and privilege as they possibly can. The remediation really requires output from the investigation to understand where the risk points are and where the gaps are, both in the compliance program and the internal controls. There’s a tension there, and it needs to be structured in a way that information can be shared with those who are designing the remediation without fear of compromising the investigation.  Dan Chapman, CCO at Vimpelcom and formerly CCO at Parker Drilling,  also believes that costs must be adequately discussed to set proper expectations. These include both direct costs and, even more importantly, a discussion of indirect costs to the company. He noted that “the biggest cost to a company during an investigation is the diversion of management resources” and, as he further explained, “kind of everything stops to focus on the investigation.” This indirect cost comes through largely the time commitment of senior management. He further explained, “if senior management has to commit 20% of their time, that’s 20% that’s not going towards revenue generating, shareholder value protecting activities.”  Yet, how can you communicate that to somebody who has not gone through a full blown internal investigation then coupled with a federal investigation with the DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) involved? Understanding that the all-encompassing nature of such an event is difficult to articulate, Chapman goes through some of his past experiences as touch points. He said, “I talk about past experiences. One example would be at a past company, my first week on the job, they had a worldwide conference for all the senior managers from around the world. At that meeting, I asked all the senior executives, you know, C-level executives. I said, “Over the last few years, have you spent 5% of your time on the matter? They’d raise their hands. Then I kept escalating it: 10%, 15%. Hands didn’t go down until about 20%. Then I explained to them, to the audience, I said, “So if you got 5%, 10%, 15% more than your senior management, where would this company be?” I think that’s helpful, but there’s not great way to quantify it. It’s kind of like quantifying compliance generally. How do you quantify the absence of non-compliance? How do you quantify what could have been? How do you quantify the opportunity costs of managements time?”  You can explain the upside of compliance and do that in a manner that juxtaposes the cost. Chapman said you could mention things such as, “If you have clear policies and people know what to do, think how much easier your life would be. Instead of having to make calls and figure it out on your own every single time, you had clear policy.” The same types of arguments come into play in areas generally considered the purview of HR, i.e. recruiting and retention.  About recruiting Chapman posed the following for consideration, “Think about recruiting. Where do your new hires out of college come from? Where do they get their information about your company? If they Google your company, what’s one of the first things they see if you’ve been in trouble? They Google it, and they’ll get a penalty, or they’ll get some news article about the wrongdoings.” He also points out retention of current employees by asking, “How you would feel if everybody at this company felt good about working here, and no one felt embarrassed by what happened. Would that help retention?”  Yet even more than these types of points about employees in the organization, Chapman believes it is important to make it personal to the highest level of the organization and try to make it as real and personal to your audience as possible. He says he asks the Board and senior management “What about you? How do you feel about being involved in it? Rather than being something that’s out there, the company, what about you? How do you feel about being here?”  Obviously, the investigation will be critical for you to help understand what remediation your compliance program will need going forward. As Berland said, “Somebody found a way to get around your system. Maybe they colluded to overcome the internal controls. Maybe there was a group that simply wasn’t well trained, didn’t understand, or there was a group that was extremely well trained, and decided to do it anyway. But somehow, there are issues in your system, and by system, the overall system of the executive tone, the governance, the compliance program, the internal controls, all at a meta level.”            It is axiomatic that you cannot finds gaps in your compliance system until you stress test it. Viewed in this light, your compliance failures can be viewed as such a stress test. Berland said, “Well, guess what, you just got handed a stress test, and this is where the system broke down. Now you know there’s a gap. Well, absent the investigation, as painful and difficult as that is, that gap would have just been sitting there.” The investigation will raise information to you about the failures of your compliance program that you may not have known existed previously.  While there will be a desire by some folks to not give out any information about the investigation until it is completed and there is a final report, you must resist this at all costs. If the results of the investigation are not made available to you as the CCO or the compliance professional charged with remediating the compliance program, any such remediation will be extremely difficult, because, as Berland noted, “you’re just going off suppositions and guesses.”  He advocates there be a solid line of communication between the people who are doing the investigation and the people who are leading the remediation. Otherwise, you can only begin your remediation in the most general terms and you will not be able to deal with specific gaps in your compliance program or risks that need to be managed.  Such an approach can also be a recipe for disaster. First, and foremost, the DOJ will not give you credit and you may lose the types of benefits articulated in the FCPA Pilot Program. Moreover, the executive attention will have dissipated, or, as Berland said, “When you’ve got the energy, use it.”  What about the always-dreaded ‘Where Else’ question in any FCPA investigation? Berland believes the key is “anticipating the question is going to come up, and having an answer ready, which is, “We are going to do a comprehensive risk assessment of the remainder of the company. We are not going to go out and look under every leaf and every, you know, check every tree, but we are going to do a very extensive risk assessment, and we’ll be able to come back and tell you that we don’t think there is a likelihood of other issues in other places.””            However, the answer could be equally something along the lines that ““we have found a high likelihood and we’re going to continue to take deeper and deeper considers that section until we know if something happened or not.” That was an acceptable answer. It was, you know, “here's the slice of the pie where we know something is happening, and here’s the process to look at the rest, given it really is kind of a risk assessment plus going forward.””  Three Key Takeaways A serious FCPA allegation gets the attention of the Board and senior management. Use this time to move the compliance program forward. Be aware of how your investigation can impact and even inform your remediation efforts. How do you deal with the dreaded ‘where else’ question?   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many companies have an investigation protocol in place when a potential Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) or other legal issue arises? However, many Boards of Directors do not have the same rigor when it comes to an investigation, which should be conducted or led by the Board itself. The consequences of this lack of foresight can be problematic, because if a Board of Directors does not get an investigation which it handles right, the consequences to the company, its reputation and value can all be quite severe. The SEC considers a variety of factors around corporate investigations including: Did management, the board or committees consisting solely of outside directors oversee the review? Did company employees or outside persons perform the review? If outside persons, have they done other work for the company? There is also role of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in internal investigations, most particularly for audit committees. Section 301 establishes certain requirements for Audit Committees, including: (1) Procedures for receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints received by the issuer regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters; (2) Procedures regarding the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the issuer of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters; (3) Authority to engage independent counsel and other advisers, as it determines necessary to carry out its duties; and (4) Funding to engage advisors as it deems appropriate.  In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP write about five key goals that any investigation led by a Board of Directors must meet. They are:  Thoroughness - The authors believe that one of the key, and most critical, questions that any regulator might pose is just how thorough is an investigation; to test whether they can rely on the facts discovered without hav­ing to repeat the investigation themselves. Regulators tend to be skeptical of investigations where limits are placed (expressly or otherwise) on the investigators, in terms of what is investigated, or how the investigation is conducted. This question can be an initial deal-killer particularly if the regulator involved views an investigation insuf­ficiently thorough, its credibility is undermined. And, of course, it can lead to the dreaded ‘Where else’ question. Objectivity - Here the authors write that any “investigation must follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of the conse­quences. This includes how the findings may impact senior management or other company employees. An investigation seen as lacking objectivity will be viewed by outsiders as inadequate or deficient.” I would add that in addition to the objectivity requirement in the investigation, the same must be had with the investigators themselves. If a company uses its regular outside counsel, it may be viewed with some askance, particularly if the client is a high volume client of the law firm involved, either in dollar amounts or in number of matters handled by the firm. Accuracy - As in any part of a best practices anti-corruption compliance program, the three most important things are Document, Document and Document. This means that the factual findings of an investiga­tion must be well supported. For if the developed facts are not well supported, the authors believe that the investigation is “open to collateral attack by skeptical prosecutors and regulators. If that happens, the time and money spent on the internal investigation will have been wasted, because the government will end up conducting its own investigation of the same issues.” This is never good and your company may well lose what little credibility and good will that it may have engendered by self-reporting or self-investigating. Timeliness - Certainly in the world of FCPA enforcement, an internal investigation should be done quickly. This has become even more necessary with the tight deadlines set under the Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower provisions. But there are other considerations for a public company such as an impending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quarterly or annual report that may need to be deferred absent as a timely resolution of the matter. Lastly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) or SEC may view delaying an investigation as simply a part of document spoliation. So timeliness is crucial. Credibility - One of the realities of any FCPA investigation is that a Board of Directors led investigation is reviewed after the fact by not only skeptical third parties but also sometimes years after the initial events and investigation. So not only is there the opportunity for Monday-Morning Quarterbacking but quite a bit of post event analysis. So the authors believe that any Board of Directors led investigation “must be (and must be perceived as) credible as to what was done, how it was done, and who did it. Otherwise, the board’s work will have been for naught.”  Dan Chapman, Chief Compliance Officer at Vimpelcom, has said this is the time for a very frank conversation with your Board about what such an investigation will entail. Costs must be adequately discussed to set proper expectations. These include both direct costs and, what Chapman believes may be even more important, a discussion of indirect costs to the company. He noted that “the biggest cost to a company during an investigation is the diversion of management resources” and, as he further explained, “kind of everything stops to focus on the investigation.” This indirect cost comes through largely the time commitment of senior management. He further explained, “if senior management has to commit 20% of their time, that’s 20% that’s not going towards revenue generating, shareholder value protecting activities.”  Finally Jonathan Marks, a partner at Marcum LLC has noted after notification of serious allegations, Boards should take the following steps: Consider creating a Special Committee to conduct the investigation; Establish a committee charter; Preserve the electronic and hardcopy documentation environment; Communicate with external auditors; and Plan potential communication with the SEC, DOJ, and the relevant stock exchange.  Marks also notes that while a special committee might be necessary in certain rare circumstances, the board should try to avoid forming a special investigative committee to oversee the investigation if its audit committee is composed of independent and disinterested directors that are suited for the task. A special committee must be disbanded at some point (usually once the investigation is completed and before the restatement process begins), and the disbanding could become a complicated news item.  Conversely, if the audit committee oversees the investigation, then, once the investigation is complete, the audit committee can pivot back to its normal role, which would include overseeing the actual restatement process. Investigations overseen by the audit committee also benefit from the positive relationship that the audit committee chair usually has with the audit partner of the company’s external auditor.   Three Key Takeaways The Board should have a written protocol for investigations prepared in advance. Any Board led investigation must be both credible and objective. The investigation must be thorough but the Board can be cost effective.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today I want to consider a couple of failures at the Board level around bribery and corruption.    VimpelCom  Board of Directors and Senior Management Involvement  VimpelCom sought to enter the telecom market through the acquisition of a local player, Unitel, as an entrée into the Uzbekistan market. Unitel made clear to VimpelCom that to have access to, obtain and retain business in the Uzbeki telecom space, VimpelCom would have to, according to the VimpelCom DPA, “regularly pay Foreign Officials millions of dollars” who was Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of the then President of the country. VimpelCom also acquired another entity Butzel, that was at least partially owned by an Uzbeki government official, who hid their interest through a shell company, which was known to VimpelCom. VimpelCom did not articulate a legitimate business reason for the deal and paid $60MM for Buztel. As laid out in the VimpleCom’s Information, its senior management was well aware of the potential FCPA risk. The Information stated, “From the beginning of VIMPELCOM’s deliberations concerning its entry into Uzbekistan, there was an acknowledgment of the serious FCPA risks associated with certain VIMPELCOM management’s recommendation to purchase Buztel in addition to Unitel… Documents prepared for the December 13, 2005 Finance Committee meeting explained that Buztel was owned by a Russian company “and a partner” without further detailing the identity of the “partner” who was in fact Ms. Karimova. The materials documented that “[t]hrough a local partner, [VIMPELCOM was] in a preferred position to purchase both assets . . . .”” The Finance Committee “identified the likelihood of corruption and expressed concerns.” Even with these reservations, the Finance Committee failed to identify the local partners.  But there was even more specific cautions around a FCPA violation when one Finance Committee member ““expressed concern on the structure of the deal and FCPA issues” and noted “that if [VIMPELCOM] goes into this deal under this structure and if the structure violates the FCPA picture, [VIMPELCOM’s] name could be damaged.”” The Finance Committee voted to move forward with the Buztel portion of the transaction “provided that all issues related to the FCPA should be resolved.”  These concerns moved up to the VimpelCom Board of Directors. In a December, 2005 Board meeting, “the likelihood of corruption was further discussed” and that “there was a recognition that a thorough analysis was needed to ensure that the Buztel payment was not merely a corrupt pretext for other services and favors. There were also numerous requests to ensure that the deal complied with the FCPA. Ultimately, VIMPELCOM’s board approved the Buztel and Unitel acquisitions, with a condition that FCPA analysis from an international law firm be provided to VIMPELCOM.”  Here VimpelCom management defrauded its own Board of Directors. The Information states, “VIMPELCOM’s management then sought FCPA advice that could be used to satisfy the board’s requirement while allowing VIMPELCOM to proceed with a knowingly corrupt deal. Despite the known risks of Foreign Official’s involvement in Buztel, certain VIMPELCOM management obtained FCPA legal opinions from an international law firm supporting the acquisition of Unitel and Buztel; however, certain VIMPELCOM management did not disclose to the law firm Foreign Official’s known association with Buztel. As a result, the legal opinion did not address the critical issue identified by the VIMPELCOM board as a prerequisite to the acquisition. Management limited the law firm’s FCPA review of the transaction to ensure that the legal opinion would be favorable. Having obtained a limited FCPA legal opinion designed to ostensibly satisfy the board’s requirement, certain VIMPELCOM management then proceeded with the Buztel acquisition and corrupt entry into the Uzbek market.”  b.      Fraudulent Stock Transfer  But that was only the start as VimpelCom then entered into a partnership with the foreign official who was given an ownership interest in Unitel, through the shell corporation. The shell company held an option to sell this interest back to VimpelCom in 2009. It would appear that the owner of the shell corporation was well known within both VimpelCom and Unitel but both entities referred to this person as the “partner” or “local partner”. VimpelCom set up partnership where, “Shell Company obtained an indirect interest of approximately 7% in Unitel for $20 million, and Shell Company received an option to sell its shares back to Unitel in 2009 for between $57.5 million and $60 million for a guaranteed net profit of at least $37.5 million.”  VimpelCom’s Board was required to and did approve the partnership but as with the original acquisition, “approval again was conditioned on “FCPA analysis by an international law firm” and required that the “the identity of the Partner . . . [be] presented to and approved by the Finance Committee.” VIMPELCOM received an FCPA opinion on the sale of the indirect interest in Unitel to Shell Company on or about August 30, 2006. The FCPA advice VIMPELCOM received was not based on important details that were known to certain VIMPELCOM management and that certain VIMPELCOM management failed to provide to outside counsel, including Foreign Official’s control of Shell Company. In addition, documents, including minutes from the Finance Committee’s meeting on August 28, 2006, failed to identify the true identity of the local partner by name while noting the “extremely sensitive” nature of the issue.”  Some three years later, the shell company exercised its option to be bought out of the partnership for $57.5MM, after having invested $20MM. This netted a profit of $37.5MM. Unfortunately for all involved, they routed the payments for the transaction through financial institutions in the US, thereby creating FCPA jurisdiction.  BizJet  Another FCPA enforcement action involved the Tulsa-based company BizJet, which had four senior executives convicted for their participation in a bribery scheme. But this case also involved the Board of Directions. In the Criminal Information it stated, that in November 2005, “at a Board of Directors meeting of the BizJet Board, Executive A and Executive B discussed with the Board that the decision of where an aircraft is sent for maintenance work is generally made by the potential customer’s director of maintenance or chief pilot, that these individuals are demanding $30,000 to $40,000 in commissions, and that BizJet would pay referral fees in order to gain market share.”  In both cases, this is where the rubber hits the road. If a company is willing to commit bribery and engage in corruption to secure business no amount of doing compliance is going to help. If senior management is ready, willing and able to lie, cheat and steal, the Board is the final backstop to prevent such conduct. Both the VimpelCom and BizJet Boards sorely failed in their compliance duties.  Three Key Takeaways Board liability will be severe based upon similar conduct going forward. Board members must critically challenge management on its conduct. The Board is the ultimate backstop against bribery and corruption. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, I visit with Sherman & Sterling partner Phillip Urofsky who leads a team which produced the the 2017 FCPA Digest, one of the top annual compendium of annual FCPA reviews of the prior year's enforcement actions and related issues. We  discuss the following: Any trends or highlights that observed in the Digest; How cases of Qualcomm, JPMorgan, and VimpelCom reflect new expansions of regulators’ views as to the scope of the term “anything of value” in FCPA bribery cases; Why the ruling in the SEC’s ongoing case against the Magyar executives upheld a novel theory on the Commission’s jurisdiction to enforce the FCPA; His thought on the Pilot Program; is it as a success? Where might it go after this first year? Will it be renewed or made permanent? Do the Embraer and Odebrecht cases portend greater global anti-corruption enforcement? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are back to our more rounded format for this episode on a variety of topics including anti-corruption enforcement across the globe, the new French anti-corruption law, Sapin II, the Agricultural Bank of China compliance enforcement action by the state of New York Department of Financial Services; how corruption influences as much as it pays money and individual accountability for corporate malfeasance is not a Democratic or GOP issue but a law enforcement issue. We end with a well-deserved one minute rant from the panel about what is in the front of their mind. Mike Volkov discusses the internationalization of anti-corruption enforcement. He refers to the comments from the ACI FCPA conference, by Kara Brockmeyer and Dan Kahn about the increasing international enforcement efforts against corruption. This extends far beyond cooperation but also to enforcement. Recent examples are VimpelCom and Embraer where other countries received proceeds from fines and penalties. How does a company begin to deal with this type of complexity? Who does it disclose to? Who does it pay? When will the US give credit for payments made to other countries and when does it not? Finally this year saw of the third joint DOJ/SEC week long training for foreign prosecutors put on in DC. How do such events assist enforcement efforts, particularly around cooperation and mutual assistance? For Tom Fox’s blog post, “Anti-Corruption Enforcement Has Gone International?” click here.  Matt Kelly leads a discussion dive into the AgBank enforcement/sanction action. He explains what does it all means and then pivots into a discussion of where he might see state regulators such as the state of New York Department of Financial Services or state banking regulators becoming more aggressive if the Trump administration pulls back? He discusses how these issues may have relevance for areas of compliance other than bribery and corruption and if so how. Finally, he ends with a reverse states’ rights discussion of Democratically aligned states fighting federal roll back of rights and privileges through litigation. For Kelly’s posts, see post on the enforcement action involving the Agriculture Bank of China, click here.  Jonathan Armstrong leads a discussion on the new French anti-corruption law, Sapin II. He discusses the genesis of the law and why prior French efforts at anti-corruption law and enforcement was so harshly criticized by the OECD. He articulates how Sapin II differs from the UKBA, FCPA, the Brazilian Clean Companies Act and other anti-corruption laws across the globe. He talks about where he envisions French enforcement efforts going and the whistleblower protections of the law. Finally he ends with the key piece(s) of advice for clients regarding this law Cordery is suggesting around this law. For Cordery’s piece on the new law click here. Jay Rosen takes us through a Paul Krugman NYT post on some of the invidiousness of corruption, focusing on the corrupting nature of compliance around undue influence. Rosen explains incentives more than anything else and how such incentives skew the marketplace. We consider whether Trump’s discussions with the Carrier Corp over jobs was unduly influenced recalling President Kennedy’s ‘jawboning’ of the US steel industry in the 1960s. He also discusses the remarks of Sally Yates at ACI national FCPA conference about individual accountability and how this is not a GOP or Democratic issue but a criminal enforcement issue. For a link Krugman post, click here. For a copy of the text of Yates remarks, click here. For a copy of Jay blog post entitled, “The DOJ and SEC Share Patriots Mantra—Next Prosecutor Up” click here. Rants this week include the new UK surveillance law, the SEC domestic corruption enforcement action involving United Airlines for the Chairman’s Flight and the Chicken Littles of the compliance world claiming the sky is falling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are back to our more rounded format for this episode on a variety of topics including anti-corruption enforcement across the globe, the new French anti-corruption law, Sapin II, the Agricultural Bank of China compliance enforcement action by the state of New York Department of Financial Services; how corruption influences as much as it pays money and individual accountability for corporate malfeasance is not a Democratic or GOP issue but a law enforcement issue. We end with a well-deserved one minute rant from the panel about what is in the front of their mind. Mike Volkov discusses the internationalization of anti-corruption enforcement. He refers to the comments from the ACI FCPA conference, by Kara Brockmeyer and Dan Kahn about the increasing international enforcement efforts against corruption. This extends far beyond cooperation but also to enforcement. Recent examples are VimpelCom and Embraer where other countries received proceeds from fines and penalties. How does a company begin to deal with this type of complexity? Who does it disclose to? Who does it pay? When will the US give credit for payments made to other countries and when does it not? Finally this year saw of the third joint DOJ/SEC week long training for foreign prosecutors put on in DC. How do such events assist enforcement efforts, particularly around cooperation and mutual assistance? For Tom Fox’s blog post, “Anti-Corruption Enforcement Has Gone International?” click here.   Jay Rosen takes us through a Paul Krugman NYT post on some of the invidiousness of corruption, focusing on the corrupting nature of compliance around undue influence. Rosen explains incentives more than anything else and how such incentives skew the marketplace. We consider whether Trump’s discussions with the Carrier Corp over jobs was unduly influenced recalling President Kennedy’s ‘jawboning’ of the US steel industry in the 1960s. He also discusses the remarks of Sally Yates at ACI national FCPA conference about individual accountability and how this is not a GOP or Democratic issue but a criminal enforcement issue. For a link Krugman post, click  here. For a copy of the text of Yates remarks, click  here. For a copy of Jay blog post entitled, “The DOJ and SEC Share Patriots Mantra—Next Prosecutor Up” click  here. Rants this week include the new UK surveillance law, the SEC domestic corruption enforcement action involving United Airlines for the Chairman’s Flight and the Chicken Littles of the compliance world claiming the sky is falling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Vimpelcom-høring. De forviste tyskerjentene. Brexit meningsmålinger. Hegerberg vant med Lyon. Norskeksamen for vanskeleg.

* The process of selecting the next UN Secretary General begins today. * South African opposition party vows to boycott Parliament. * British Prime Minister David Cameron defends his tax affairs. * In Economics: Zimbabwe on the verge of taking over Russian-owned Vimpelcom stake. * And In Sports: South Africa's Under 23 tecnical team prepare to leave for the Olympic draw in Brazil.

VimpelCom is one of the largest telecom companies in the world, but a few years ago the company started facing more competition from a new crop of Internet-based rivals. The company decided to become more serious about its mission to focus on customers, adopting the Net Promoter System to guide its efforts. To gauge its progress, VimpelCom used Bain's Net Promoter System assessment tool to identify weak spots. In this episode, Rob Markey talks to VimpelCom executives Anton Telegin and Natalia Macpherson about what it took for the company to make this cultural shift.

De Nederlandse staat trof onlangs een megaschikking met een van de grootste telecombedrijven van de wereld, het Russische Vimpelcom. Vimpelcom heeft een Amerikaanse beursnotering en is wegens ons gunstige belastingklimaat gevestigd in Amsterdam. Het bedrijf gaf miljoenen uit aan steekpenningen aan een Oezbeekse functiionaris, die toevallig de dochter is van de president, om zich toegang te verschaffen op de Oezbeekse markt. De praktijken van het telecombedrijf kwamen aan het licht door de gezamelijke inspanningen van een Oost-Europees collectief van onderzoeksjournalisten (OCCRP). Justitie kon Vimpelcom aanpakken omdat het bedrijf onder de Nederlandse jurisdictie valt en harkte de schikking van 358 miljoen binnen. Het bedrijf ontloopt daarmee vervolging.Tanja van Bergen, directeur van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Onderzoeksjournalisten pleit ervoor dat een percentage van de megaschikking terugvloeit naar de OCCRP. Want zonder die club was het omkoopschandaal nooit boven water gekomen, zegt zij. Tanja van Bergen is te gast in Argos

** - Norske skular må øva meir på korleis dei skal takla alvorlege hendingar og vald, seier kunnskapsministeren. ** Badet er eitt av dei farlegaste romma for eldre.. Vi skal straks høyra om ein nordisk oppfinnarkonkurranse som kan hjelpa dei som ynskjer å bli buande heime.. ** Jo Lunder hevdar han vart manipulert av sine eigne då han var sjef i det delvis Telenor-eigde selskapet Vimpelcom. (og) ** Den internasjonale olympiske komiteen IOC vil ha fleire kvinnelege sjefar. Det skal Erna Solberg hjelpa dei med.

** Fra et land i unntakstilstand med gjentatte terrorangrep, som avler flest fremmedkrigere, kommer årets fredsprisvinnere. Hva er det egentlig Nobelkomiteen hedrer, spør vi? ** Riksadvokaten fikk det som han ville; Stortingets kontrollkomité utsetter Vimpelcom-høringen i seks måneder. ** De bytter bort kua, men får ingenting igjen, raser Senterpartiet etter at Stortinget dropper statsstøtten til Jarlsberg-osten. ** Hver tredje velger i Frankrike støtter Nasjonal Front og franske aviser kaller det det store sjokket. Våre eksperter er ikke sjokkerte. ** Vil flyseteavgiften føre til mindre CO2 i atmosfæren til syvende og sist? Vi spør ikke politikerne, men forskerne.

** Terrororganisasjonen IS hevder å ha drept norsk gissel i Syria. ** - Vi må ikke la IS viske ut gråsonen og det fargerike fellesskapet, sier Åsne Seierstad. - Vel, midt i denne gråsonen står jeg og min moderate islam, sier Fahad Qureshi, som ikke håndhilser på damer. Så hvor tolerante orker vi å være i denne gråsonen? ** - Martin Kolberg oppfører seg som en selvoppnevnt politisk husgud i Vimpelcom-saken, sier redaktør. - Jeg representerer demokratiet, sier Martin Kolberg. ** Og slukket virkelig Eiffeltårnet lyset for første gang da terroren rammet Paris? Løgner ble spredd i sosiale medier etter terrorangrepene. Men hvorfor lar vi oss lure?

Telenor og VimpelCom er i søkelyset for korrupsjon, men de er langt fra de eneste. I tillegg til selskapene har kommuner delt ut attraktive tomter til fotballklubber og investorer. Vi tar opp hva korrupsjon egentlig er, hvordan den ser ut og hva kan man gjøre med det. Guro Slettemark i Transparency International Norge og Pål Lønseth, sjef for granskningsavdelingen i PwC, kommer for å gi oss innsikt i de mørke rom. Programledere er Per Valebrokk og Marius Lorentzen. Produsert av Magne D. Antonsen. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Utenriksjournalist Alf Ole Ask snakker om Usbekistan og Vimpelcom-skandalen i Telenor med Aftenpostens Moskva-korrespondent Per Anders Johansen og tidligere korrespondent Halvor Tjønn. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

** Her får du høre mer om at Telenor trolig ble varslet om mulig korrupsjon i Vimpelcom allerede for fire år siden. ** Utlendingsdirektoratet må fordele asylmottakene mer rettferdig, mener Arbeiderpartiet. 300 kommuner i landet har sluppet å få asylmottak. ** Vi skal til vår korrespondent i Myanmar og får en rapport fra det første relativt frie valget på 25 år. ** Og her hjemme får Fortidsminneforeningen sin største private gave noen sinne for å redde kulturminner som står til forfalls.

Flyktnigsituasjonen over Storskog skaper politisk kaos. Telenor og Vimpelcom-saken er det første snøraset i en stor skandale. Og Hanne Skartveit snakker helst med andre kvinner, fremfor menn, når hun er på fest. Hør Anders Giæver, Frithjof Jacobsen, Hanne Skartveit og Morten Hegseth. Produsert av Kristine Hellesland. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Er Harald Eia en pionér eller en huleboer? Frp-ledelsen er splittet om asyl-samtaler, og de ulike partiene har et stort spekter med motiver for et innvandringsforlik. I tillegg rystes Telenor av Vimpelcom-skandalen. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

* Telenor-ledelsen til ny høring om Vimpelcom-saken før jul. Selskapet har satt seg i en håpløs dobbeltrolle, sier jusprofessor. - Påfallende at Næringsdepartementet ikke foretok grundigere undersøkelser, sier Senterpartiet. * Norge stemte nei til FN-resolusjon som vil forby atomvåpen. - Vi kan ikke bryte med NATO-strategien, sier Utenriksdepartementet. - Regjeringen må ta hensyn til stortingsflertallet, sier Anniken Huitfeldt. * Oljesatsing i Barentshavet er et veddemål mot vellykket klimapolitikk, sier redaktør. Ren synsing, mener direktøren for Norsk Olje og Gass. * Vi skal også markere at det i morgen er hackernes internasjonale dag.

* Vimpelcom-skandalen ruller videre. Telenor må i ny Stortingshøring før jul. * Godhetstyranniet rir Norge som en mare, mener Sylvi Listhaug etter kirkas dom over regjeringas bistandskutt. Men kirka vil fortsatt prioritere de fattigste, svarer preses Helga Byfuglien. * Harald Eia setter mer pris på ros fra menn, enn fra kvinner. - Er ikke det Eias eget problem, spør skuespiller Rolf Kristian Larsen. * Du er gull verdt for annonsørene. Flere enn førti aktører følger med på hva du klikker på på nettet - hver gang.

* Styreleder i Telenor Svein Aaser trekker seg med umiddelbar virkning. "Jeg har ikke lenger tillit til ham, sier næringsminster Monica Mæland etter å ha fått nye opplysninger i Vimpelcom-saken. * Det blir mer bråk om bruk av bistandsmidler enn det var om hele statsbudsjettet. Vi forsøker en oppklaringsrunde i Dagsnytt 18 med Erna Solberg, Siv Jensen, Jonas Gahr Støre og Knut Arild Hareide. * Bistandsorganisasjonene raser over milliardkuttene. Nikolai Astrup fra Høyre mener imidlertid forslaget fra regjeringen er solidarisk. * Vi skal også høre at det er voldsomme skogbranner i Indonesia. Brannene er påsatt for å rydde plass til mer palme-olje-produksjon. Her hjemme reagerer naturvernorganisasjonene.

Regjeringen er ikke ambisiøs nok for å bekjempe vold mot barn - Tiltaksplanen som ble lagt frem i dag preges av gode intensjoner og lite handlekraft, mener kritikerne Det er ikke nok med nulltolleranse for korrupsjon - vi trenger er strengere krav til norske selskap, sier antikorrupsjonsforkjemper etter at Telenors datterselskap VIMPELCOM er beskyldt for korrupsjon Hertuginnen av Alba er død. Kongehusekspert kommer for å fortelle mer om kvinnen med verdensrekord i titler. ------------------------------------ Velkommen til Dagsnytt 18. Jeg heter Hege Holm

TOPPER: Presidentvalget i USA er i gang. Hva har Obama utrettet de siste fire årene, spør vi. Det Telenor-eide selskapet Vimpelcom tjener gode penger i et av verdens verste diktaturer, Usbekistan. - De kan ikke bare drive business, de må tenke politikk også, krever Jan Egeland. Arne Johannsessen har gitt uansvarligheten et ansikt, skriver VGs politiske redaktør i dag. Denne uka blir Johannessen gjenvalgt som leder av Politiforbundet. --------- I sendinga skal vi også høre at det lever over ett hundre tusen fattige barn her i landet. Kristelig Folkeparti mener regjeringens fattigdomspolitikk har spilt falitt.