5. maj 2015 Dag 105 i det syvende år - Historie

5. maj 2015 Dag 105 i det syvende år - Historie


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Præsident Barack Obama griner med, venstre mod højre, National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice, general Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., general Paul J. Selva, forsvarsminister Ashton Carter og vicepræsident Joe Biden i Oval Office forud for annoncerer deres nomineringer som formand og næstformand for de fælles stabschefer 5. maj 2015


11:00 PRÆSIDENTEN og VICEPRESIDENTEN modtager præsidentens daglige briefing
Oval kontor

12:00 PRÆSIDENTEN afgiver en personalemeddelelse
Rosenhave

16:15 PRÆSIDENTEN mødes med forsvarsminister Carter
Oval kontor

17:25 PRÆSIDENTEN er vært for en Cinco de Mayo -reception
Øst værelse


5 værste administrerende direktører revideret - Jobskabere eller dræbere denne arbejdsdag?

Det er Labor Day og en tid, hvor vi naturligvis tænker på vores job.

Når det kommer til jobskabelse, er ingen rolle mere kritisk end administrerende direktør. Intet firma vil gå ind i en vækstfase, der sælger flere produkter og udvider beskæftigelsen, medmindre administrerende direktør accepterer at investere. På samme måde vil intet selskab krympe, hvilket medfører tab af job på grund af afskedigelser og masseafskedigelser, medmindre administrerende direktør accepterer nedskæringer og omkostningsreduktioner. Begge beslutninger er i hænderne på den administrerende direktør, og det er hans/hendes dygtighed, der afgør, om en virksomhed tilføjer job eller sletter dem.

For over 2 år siden (5. maj 2012) udgav jeg "De 5 administrerende direktører, der skal fyres." Ikke overraskende siden har beskæftigelsen i alle 5 af disse virksomheder halter den økonomiske vækst, og beskæftigelsen er i alt undtagen ét faldet. Alligevel forbliver 3 af disse administrerende direktører i deres job - på trods af manglende (og i nogle tilfælde dystre) præstationer. Og alle 5 virksomheder står over for betydelige kampe, hvis ikke overhængende fiasko.

#5 - John Chambers på Cisco

I 2012 var det klart, at markedsskiftet til offentlige netværk og cloud computing for altid ændrede brugen af ​​netværksudstyret, hvilket havde gjort Cisco til en moderne væksthistorie under langsigtede CEO Chambers. Men siden da har der ikke været nogen klar forbedring i Ciscos formuer. På trods af 2 kontroversielle reorganiseringer og 3 fyringsrunder er Cisco ikke bedre positioneret i dag til at vokse, end det var før.

I stigende grad ligner CEO Chambers 'omorganiseringer og afskedigelser så mange bearbejdninger for at bevare virksomhedens arv frem for en klar vision om, hvor virksomheden vil vokse næste gang. Medarbejdermoralen er faldet, salgsvæksten er haltet, og selvom aktien er genopstået fra 2012 -lavpunkterne, er den stadig mindst 10% mindre end 2010 -højderne - selvom S & ampP når rekordhøjder. Mens hans embedsperiode begyndte med en enorm væksthistorie, står Cisco i dag for døren til at miste relevans, da spændingen henvender sig til cloud -tjenesteudbydere som Amazon. Og faldet i job hos Cisco er endnu et tegn på behovet for nyt lederskab.

#4 Jeff Immelt hos General Electric

Da CEO Immelt overtog Jack Welch, havde han nogle hårde sko at fylde. Jack Welchs embedsperiode markerede en eksplosion i værdiskabelse for den sidste tilbageværende originale Dow Jones Industrial komponentvirksomhed. Indtægterne var vokset hvert år, normalt med to cifre. Overskuddet steg, beskæftigelsen voksede enormt, og både leverandører og investorer fik, efterhånden som virksomheden voksede.

Men det hele gik i stå under Immelt. GE har undladt at udvikle endnu et stort nyt marked eller positionere sig som den slags førende virksomhed, det var under Welch. Indtægterne oversteg $ 150B i 2009 og 2010, men er dog faldet siden. I 2013 faldt indtægterne til $ 142B fra $ 145B i 2012. For at opretholde indtægterne har virksomheden været tvunget til at fortsætte med at sælge virksomheder og nedskære medarbejdere hvert år. Den samlede beskæftigelse i 2014 er nu mindre end i 2012.

Imidlertid fortsætter Mr. Immelt med at beholde sit job, selvom bestanden har været en efterslæb. Fra de næsten $ 60 toppede det ved hans ankomst, bestanden vaklede. Det genvandt til $ 40 i 2007, kun for at falde til under $ 10, da administrerende direktørs overdrevne afhængighed af finansielle tjenester næsten gjorde det engang store produktionsselskab konkurs i 2009. Da virksomheden overvejer at sælge sin mangeårige varemærkevirksomhed, er aktien stadig mindre end halvdelen af ​​2007 -værdien, og under 1/3 er det hele tiden højt. Hvor er jobene? Ikke GE.

#3 Mike Duke på Wal-Mart

Mr. Duke har forladt Wal-Mart, men ikke i god form. Siden 2012 har virksomheden været rystet af skandaler, da det kom frem, har virksomheden sandsynligvis bestukket embedsmænd i Mexico. I mellemtiden har det undladt at forsvare sin arbejdspraksis i National Labor Relations Board og er fortsat i strid med påstået forskelsbehandling af kvindelige ansatte. Virksomhedens ansættelsespraksis er regelmæssigt mål for fagforeninger og dem, der støtter en højere mindsteløn.

Virksomheden har haft 6 kvartaler i træk med faldende trafik, da salget pr. Butik fortsat halter - hvilket viser lederskabets manglende evne til at begejstre folk til at shoppe i deres butikker, når væksten skifter til dollarbutikker. Aktien var $ 70 i 2012 og er nu kun $ 75,60, selvom S & ampP 500 er steget med cirka 50%. Hidtil har bybutikker i mindre format ikke skabt megen opmærksomhed, og virksomheden er stadig langt bag på leder Amazon inden for onlinesalg. WalMart ligner i stigende grad en kæmpe fanget i sit historiske hus, der hurtigt går i stykker.

Et stort spørgsmål at stille er, hvem der vil arbejde for WalMart? I 2013 truede virksomheden med at lukke alle sine DC -butikker, hvis byrådet havde en højere mindsteløn. Men siden da har større byer (San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle osv.) Enten vedtaget eller er i færd med at vedtage lokal lovgivning, der øger mindstelønnen til alt fra $ 12,50-$ 15,00/time. Men der synes ikke at være noget svar fra WalMart om, hvordan det vil skabe overskud, når omkostningerne stiger.

#2 Ed Lampert på Sears (Den NYE #1!)

Ni lige kvartalsvise tab. Det om siger det hele for at kæmpe Sears. Siden kolonnen 5/2012 har administrerende direktør lukket flere butikker, og salget fortsætter med at falde hos dem, der er åbne. Branchesagkyndige kalder nu Sears irrelevant, og spørgsmålet er truende, om det snart vil følge Radio Shack i glemmebogen.

CEO Lampert har på egen hånd ødelagt Sears -mærket, såvel som dets navneformede produkter som Kenmore og Diehard. Han har afskediget tusinder af medarbejdere, da han konsoliderede butikker, men alligevel har han ikke været i stand til at fange nogen værdi fra den uudnyttede ejendom. I mellemtiden har lederteamet været det typiske eksempel på "en svingdør ved hovedkvarteret." Fra omkring $ 50/aktie 5/2012 (langt væk fra toppen af ​​$ 190 i 2007), er aktien faldet til midten af ​​$ 30'erne, hvilket er omtrent hvor den var i sit første år af Lamperts ledelse (2004.)

#1 Steve Ballmer hos Microsoft

I 2013 trådte Steve Ballmer, som jeg tidligere kaldte den værste administrerende direktør, tilbage som administrerende direktør for Microsoft. Efter at være blevet udskiftet, trådte han inden for et år tilbage som bestyrelsesmedlem. Begge begivenheder udløste analytiker entusiasme, og aktien steg.

Imidlertid forlod hr. Ballmer Microsoft i langt værre tilstand efter sit årti med lederskab. Microsoft gik glip af markedsskiftet til mobil, overinvestering i Windows 8 for at øge pc-salget og købe Nokia til en præmie for at prøve at fange markedet. Desværre har Windows 8 ikke været en succes, især i mobil, hvor den har mindre end 5% andel. Surface -tablets blev nedskrevet, og nu falder konsolsalget i takt med, at gamere går på mobil.

Som følge heraf har den nye administrerende direktør været tvunget til at afskedige i alle divisioner - hovedsagelig inden for mobiltelefonforretningen (tidligere Nokia). Jobvækst forekommer yderst usandsynlig hos Microsoft. Svækkede positioner på alle markeder viser flere afskedigelser for den engang formidable markedsleder.

Forbes -kollega Steve Denning har skrevet en glimrende klumme om transformationen af ​​administrerende direktører fra dem, der laver virksomheder, til dem, der tager fra deres virksomheder. Alt for mange administrerende direktører fokuserer på at opbygge en personlig nettoværdi og indhente en enorm kompensation uanset virksomhedens præstationer. Penge bruges på oppustet løn, aktietilbagekøb og håndtering af kortsigtet indtjening for at maksimere bonusser. Alt for ofte driver umiddelbare omkostningsbesparelser, såsom outsourcing, dårlige langsigtede beslutninger.

Det er administrerende direktører, der bestemmer, hvordan vores kollektive nationale ressourcer investeres. Den private økonomi, som de kontrollerer, er langt større end nogen regeringsudgifter. Harvard -professor William Lazonick beskriver, hvordan administrerende direktører mellem 2003 og 2012 gav 54% af al indtjening i aktietilbagekøb tilbage (for at øge aktiekurserne på kort sigt) og uddelte yderligere 37% i udbytte. Investorer kan have vundet, men det er svært at skabe job (og for en nation at trives), når kun 9% af al indtjening i et årti går til at opbygge nye virksomheder!

Der er gode administrerende direktører derude. Steve Jobs og hans afløser Tim Cook øgede indtægter og beskæftigelse dramatisk hos Apple. Jeff Bezos gjorde Amazon til en misundelsesværdig vækstmaskine, der producerede indtægter og job. Disse ledere er fokuseret på at gøre, hvad der kræves for at vokse deres virksomheder, og som følge heraf jobene i Amerika.

Det er bare ærgerligt, at de fem kammerater, der er profileret ovenfor, har gjort mere for at ødelægge værdi end at skabe den.

Få kontakt med mig på LinkedIn, Facebook og Twitter


FCPA 2015 i gennemgang

I 2015, året efter at Justitsministeriet ("DOJ") besluttede flere langsigtede og store dollars Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") undersøgelser, var den mest betydningsfulde FCPA-historie det kraftige fald i både antal og størrelse af DOJ's virksomheders FCPA -resolutioner. DOJ afgjorde FCPA -sager med kun to virksomheder og indsamlede $ 24,2 millioner i 2015, tal, der kun svarer til en brøkdel af de ti virksomheders håndhævelsesforanstaltninger og over 1,25 milliarder dollars, der blev indsamlet i 2014. Ikke siden 2004 har DOJ's virksomheders FCPA -retsforfølgelsesindsats resulteret i så få sager. DOJ tilskrev dette fald til færre selvoplysninger og til dets fokus på at forfølge mere komplicerede "bestraffede" bestikkelsessager. Mod denne afmatning i håndhævelsen af ​​FCPA investerede DOJ i fremtiden for sit håndhævelsesregime ved at tredoble antallet af Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agenter, der er dedikeret til at undersøge udenlandske bestikkelsessager, ansætte en dedikeret compliance -ekspert og annoncere planer om at fordoble antallet af anklagere afsat til FCPA -retsforfølgelser.

Til sammenligning havde Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") et mere typisk år med hensyn til FCPA -håndhævelsesstatistikker. Det løste ti forholdsvis lav-dollar virksomheders FCPA-håndhævelseshandlinger-med et afviklingsinterval på $ 75.000 til $ 25 millioner-og løste to håndhævelsesaktioner mod enkeltpersoner. SECs håndhævelse af virksomhed demonstrerede sit mere ekspansive syn på den type adfærd, der udgør en civil FCPA -overtrædelse. For eksempel involverede en af ​​SEC's resolutioner påstande om, at et praktikprogram for familiemedlemmer til udenlandske embedsmænd kvalificerede sig som "noget af værdi" under FCPA. Andre bemærkelsesværdige SEC -forlig involverede angiveligt betalinger og fordele til kinesiske sundhedsudbydere, der ifølge SEC var "udenlandske embedsmænd" under FCPA og angiveligt leverede ekstravagante gaver, rejser og underholdning til udenlandske embedsmænd.

I sidste del af 2015 modtog DOJ megen omtale, da den bekræftede sit løfte om at retsforfølge enkeltpersoner i et memorandum af 9. september skrevet af DOJ's viceadvokat Sally Yates ("Yates -notatet"). I overensstemmelse med disse offentlige erklæringer annoncerede DOJ i 2015 skyldige anklager fra enkeltpersoner i forbindelse med hver af sine to virksomheders FCPA -håndhævelseshandlinger og opnåede betydelige fængselsstraffe for flere tidligere ledere, der havde erkendt sig skyldige. DOJ fortsatte imidlertid sin række af FCPA-retssagskampe, da dens højt profilerede retssag mod Joseph Sigelman, tidligere administrerende direktør for PetroTiger, pludselig endte med en klageaftale for prøvetid, efter DOJs stjernevidne indrømmede at have ligget på tribunen.

DOJ og SEC forsøgte også at kaste mere lys over de potentielle fordele ved selvoplysning og samarbejde i virksomheders FCPA-sager. DOJ fremhævede specifikt virkningen af ​​selvoplysning og samarbejde på opkrævningsbeslutninger og bødeberegninger, mens SEC forklarede, at for at kvalificere sig til en ikke-anklageaftale ("NPA") eller en udskudt anklageaftale ("DPA"), en virksomheden skal selv oplyse og samarbejde. Over for specifikke oplysninger om mulig korruption kan beslutningen om selv at afsløre og samarbejde i en DOJ- eller SEC-undersøgelse være kompliceret. De offentlige erklæringer fra DOJ og SEC ser ud til at svare på spørgsmål om, hvordan selvoplysning og samarbejde påvirker sagsafgørelser og sanktioner. Det gjenstår imidlertid at se, om og hvordan disse udsagn vil blive anvendt af anklagere.

Endelig er en af ​​de mest betydningsfulde antikorruptionshistorier i 2015 fremkomsten af ​​stadig mere aggressive håndhævelsesordninger mod korruption uden for USA. Lande som Kina, Mexico og Sydkorea vedtog nye reformer mod korruption i 2015, og flere andre lande, såsom Storbritannien, Brasilien og Kina, øgede intensiteten i deres håndhævelse af korruption. I mellemtiden fortsætter DOJ og SEC med at samarbejde med deres antikorruption-kolleger rundt om i verden, og flere virksomheder står over for multi-suveræne undersøgelser relateret til den samme påståede adfærd.

Resumé af FCPA -håndhævelsesaktivitet 2015

I 2015 anlagde DOJ og SEC i alt 21 håndhævelsesforanstaltninger mod virksomheder og enkeltpersoner, hvilket var fem færre end de 26 annoncerede i 2014. [1] Størrelsen og omfanget af de monetære resolutioner i 2015 faldt betydeligt fra 2014. Mængden af ​​bøder og disgorgements for alle FCPA-håndhævelsesforanstaltninger i 2015 var $ 140 millioner, hvilket er mindre end en tiendedel af det beløb, DOJ og SEC indsamlede i 2014, et næsten rekordår på $ 1,57 milliarder og mindre end en femtedel af de $ 720 millioner, der blev indsamlet i 2013. [2] Faldet i 2015 skyldes i høj grad fraværet af bosættelser over $ 25 millioner-2014's næsten rekordår blev drevet af beslutningen om fire forlig over 100 millioner dollars. [3]

Figur 1: Antal DOJ- og SEC FCPA -håndhævelseshandlinger, 2006–2015

DOJ -håndhævelsesaktivitet faldt markant i 2015. DOJ anlagde 10 FCPA -håndhævelseshandlinger mod virksomheder og enkeltpersoner i 2015, et fald på 41 procent fra de 17 håndhævelsesaktioner i 2014. [4] Derudover løste DOJ for første gang siden 2004 kun to virksomheders FCPA -sager, hvilket er en 80 procent fald fra de ti virksomhedsresolutioner i 2014. [5] DOJ indsamlede 24,2 millioner dollars i FCPA -bøder i 2015, en lille brøkdel af de over 1,25 milliarder dollars, den indsamlede i 2014. [6]

I 2015 afgjorde DOJ to mangeårige virksomhedsundersøgelser, der involverede adfærd, der i begge tilfælde var mindst fem år gammel. For det første indgik DOJ en NPA med IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. for at løse en undersøgelse af en påstået sammensværgelse mellem 2004 og 2008 for at bestikke kuwaitiske embedsmænd for at opnå en teknologitjenestekontrakt til en værdi af 4 millioner dollars. [7] IAP Worldwide accepterede at betale en bøde på 7,1 millioner dollars og var ikke forpligtet til at beholde en skærm. [8] DOJ anførte IAP's samarbejde som en faktor, der førte til NPA. [9] For det andet indgik DOJ en DPA med Louis Berger International ("LBI"), hvor virksomheden indrømmede, at flere af dens embedsmænd i Asien bestak embedsmænd i Kuwait, Indien og Indonesien mellem 1998 og 2010 for at vinde kontrakter. [10] LBI betalte en bøde på 17,1 millioner dollar og gik med til et treårigt overvågningsteam for at løse DOJ's undersøgelse. [11] Ved at acceptere DPA overvejede DOJ virksomhedens selvoplysning, samarbejde, afhjælpning og forbedringer af dets compliance-program og interne kontroller. [12]

I oktober afgav DOJ offentlige udtalelser for at forklare faldet i FCPA -sager. En talsmand for DOJ sagde, at agenturets lavere virksomhedshåndhævelsesaktivitet kunne tilskrives afmatningen i selvrapporterede "mindre sager" og DOJ's skift i fokus til håndhævelsesaktioner af høj værdi. [13] Specifikt udtalte talsmanden, at DOJ "for flere år siden håndterede flere sager baseret på egenrapportering fra virksomheder, og som et resultat af det så vi flere beslutninger, men mindre sager." [14] Som DOJ-talsmanden forklarede dog justerer DOJ nu sit fokus til "større sager med større indvirkning, herunder sager mod skyldige personer, både i USA og i udlandet, [der] tager længere tid at undersøge og absorbere betydelige ressourcer," hvilket har ført til afmatningen i håndhævelsesaktivitet i 2015. [15] DOJ udtalte, at disse sager "tager år at undersøge", hvilket kan påvirke år-til-år-statistik. [16]

SECs FCPA -håndhævelsesstatistik forbliver konsekvent. SEC anlagde elleve FCPA -håndhævelsesforanstaltninger i 2015, op fra de ni aktioner i 2014. [17] Nærmere bestemt har SEC løst ni virksomheders håndhævelsesforanstaltninger med relativt lave dollar-med forlig, der spænder fra $ 75.000 til $ 25 millioner og en gennemsnitlig afregningsværdi på $ 12,6 millioner-og 2 individuelle handlinger. Disse resultater stemmer overens med 2014, da SEC løste syv virksomhedshåndhævelsesforanstaltninger og to individuelle handlinger. I 2015 indsamlede SEC i alt 118 millioner dollars i disgorgement, fordomsrente og sanktioner, lidt over en tredjedel af de 320 millioner dollars, det indsamlede i 2014. [18] Flere bemærkelsesværdige håndhævelsesforanstaltninger i SEC diskuteres i det næste afsnit.

Figur 2: DOJ og SEC FCPA Corporate Enforcement Actions, 2015

DOJ og SEC annoncerede ni individuelle håndhævelsesforanstaltninger. I 2015 fulgte DOJ og SEC også op på deres løfter om at forfølge enkeltpersoner i FCPA -undersøgelser. DOJ annoncerede anklager mod syv personer, hvoraf seks har fremført skyldige anbringender, og SEC anklaget to personer for civile FCPA -overtrædelser. [19]

Figur 3: DOJ og SEC FCPA individuelle håndhævelsesforanstaltninger, annonceret i 2015

Yderligere FCPA -ressourcer til DOJ. På trods af faldet i FCPA -håndhævelsesforanstaltninger annoncerede DOJ tre store initiativer for at øge FCPA -håndhævelsen, hvilket sandsynligvis vil føre til øget FCPA -håndhævelsesaktivitet i fremtiden.

  • I marts oprettede FBI i samarbejde med DOJ tre dedikerede internationale korruptionsgrupper tildelt udenlandske bestikkelsesundersøgelser. [20] Disse hold er baseret i New York, Los Angeles og Washington, DC [21] Dette skridt tredobler antallet af agenter, der er tildelt udenlandske bestikkelsesundersøgelser fra ti til 30. [22]
  • I juli meddelte DOJ ansættelsen af ​​en ny "compliance -rådgiver" til at rådgive DOJ om spørgsmål, der er relevante for retsforfølgning af forretningsenheder, herunder "eksistensen og effektiviteten af ​​ethvert compliance -program", og for at hjælpe DOJ med at beslutte, om rejse tiltale. [23] I november meddelte DOJ, at det havde hyret Hui Chen til at besætte dette indlæg. [24] Chen var tidligere Global Head for Anti-Bribery and Corruption i Standard Chartered Bank, havde forskellige interne roller og compliance-roller i Microsoft Corporation og fungerede som anklager hos DOJ. [25]
  • Endelig i november meddelte DOJ en plan om at fordoble antallet af anklagere i sin FCPA -enhed fra ti til 20. [26]

Selvom DOJ's yderligere ressourcer sandsynligvis vil føre til en stigning i FCPA -håndhævelsesaktiviteter, er det ikke tydeligt, hvor hurtigt dette vil ske, uklare resultater først meget senere i år eller 2017.

Bemærkelsesværdige SEC Corporate Enforcement Actions

I 2015 fokuserede SEC's FCPA -virksomheders håndhævelsesforanstaltninger på overtrædelser af FCPA's krav om, at udstedere fører bøger og poster, der præcist afspejler transaktioner og disponering af aktiver og opretholder intern kontrol, der er tilstrækkelig til at give rimelige forsikringer om, at transaktioner er korrekt godkendt, registreret og regnskabsmæssigt til. Alle ni SEC FCPA-aktioner mod virksomheder påstås utilstrækkelig intern kontrol og otte af de ni påståede krænkelser af bøger og registreringer. For at forfølge en intern kontrol eller bøger-og-registrering handling, behøver SEC ikke at påstå en overtrædelse af bestikkelsesbekæmpelsesbestemmelserne i FCPA. SEC anklager ofte virksomheder for overtrædelser af bøger og optegnelser og intern kontrol i mangel af afgifter mod bestikkelse. Sidste år påstod SEC krænkelser af bestikkelse i kun tre af de ni håndhævelsesaktioner.

Højdepunkter fra fem af SEC's håndhævelsesaktioner - med forlig på mellem 9,5 og 25 millioner dollars - diskuteres nedenfor. Disse håndhævelsesforanstaltninger demonstrerer den brede anvendelighed af FCPA's interne kontroller og bestemmelser om bøger og registreringer.

Ekspansiv fortolkning af FCPA's begrænsning af at levere "noget af værdi" til udenlandske embedsmænd. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. ("BNY Mellon") afgjorde påstande om, at den stillede praktikophold til udenlandsk embedsmænds kvalificerede familiemedlemmer. SEC anvendte FCPA's interne kontrolbestemmelser på BNY Mellons personaleudlejningspraksis. Det betragtede praktikpladser for pårørende til to embedsmænd, i et tilfælde ulønnet, som at give noget af værdi til en embedsmand for at skaffe eller beholde virksomhed. [27] Uden at indrømme eller nægte anklagerne indvilligede BNY Mellon i at betale 14,8 millioner dollars bestående af 8,3 millioner dollars i disgorgement, 1,5 millioner dollars i forudgående domsrenter og en straf på 5 millioner dollars. [28] BNY Mellons forlig var det første af sin art i mange henseender, det var den første håndhævelsesaktion, der involverede praktikpladser og det første forlig i forbindelse med SEC's fejning af suveræne formuefonde.

SEC havde en vidtrækkende opfattelse af FCPA's forbud mod at levere "noget af værdi" til en udenlandsk embedsmand for at skaffe eller beholde forretning, idet han påstod, at at give praktikpladser til ukvalificerede familiemedlemmer til udenlandske embedsmænd udgjorde noget af værdi for embedsmændene. [29] Ved meddelelsen af ​​forliget advarede chefen for SECs håndhævelsesafdeling om, at "kontantbetalinger, gaver, praktikophold eller andet, der bruges i korrupte forsøg på at vinde forretninger, kan udsætte virksomheder for en SEC -håndhævelse." [30] I lyset af BNY Mellon , virksomheder skal være klar over, at selv poster, der mangler nogen direkte monetær værdi - såsom praktikplads tildelt en udenlandsk embedsmands slægtning - stadig kan betragtes som en ting "af værdi" af SEC eller DOJ. Som følge heraf kan sådanne genstande, hvis de overdrages til en udenlandsk embedsmand (enten direkte eller indirekte gennem et familiemedlem), stadig udløse ansvar i henhold til FCPA. Som en del af sit samarbejde og afhjælpende indsats forstærkede BNY Mellon sit program for overholdelse af korruption for specifikt at tage fat på ansættelse af embedsmænds pårørende. [31]

Betalinger og fordele til kinesiske sundhedsudbydere under kontrol. SEC's forlig med Mead Johnson Nutrition ("Mead Johnson") og Bristol-Meyers Squibb ("BMS") fremhæver det betydelige risikoniveau, der er forbundet med at drive forretning i sundhedsindustrien i Kina, hvor mange sundhedsudbydere er ansatte i statsejede hospitaler og kunne kvalificere sig som "udenlandske embedsmænd" under FCPA.

For det første, i juli 2015, løste Mead Johnson en SEC-undersøgelse af påståede betalinger via tredjemand til sundhedspersonale på statsejede hospitaler i Kina. [32] SEC påstod, at Mead Johnsons kinesiske datterselskab foretog uretmæssige betalinger til tredjepartsforhandlere, som derefter angiveligt betalte kontanter og andre incitamenter til sundhedspersonale på kinesiske statsejede hospitaler for at få dem til at anbefale Mead Johnsons modermælkserstatning til nye og vordende mødre. [33] Lægerne på det statsejede hospital udgjorde ifølge SEC "udenlandske embedsmænd" i FCPA's forstand. [34] SEC påstod i sidste ende, at selskabets manglende nøjagtige registrering af transaktionerne og dets "slap interne kontroller" gjorde sit datterselskab i stand til at misbruge midler i strid med FCPA. [35]

Mead Johnson afviklede med SEC for $ 12 millioner - $ 7,77 millioner i disgorgement, $ 1,26 millioner i fordomsinteresser og en straf på $ 3 millioner. [36] Mead Johnson indrømmede eller benægtede ikke SEC's påstande. [37] Ved løsningen af ​​SEC's undersøgelse engagerede Mead Johnson sig i afhjælpende foranstaltninger, der omfattede opsigelse af medarbejdere (specifikt ledende medarbejdere), opdatering af dens interne kontrol og oprettelse af Kinaspecifikke overholdelsespolitikker. [38] SEC's ordre fokuserede også på Mead Johnsons omfattende samarbejde, herunder frivilligt at afsløre sine interne undersøgelsesresultater. [39]

For det andet accepterede BMS i oktober 2015 at afvikle SEC-påstande om, at det gav kontanter og andre fordele til lokale sundhedsudbydere på kinesiske statsejede og statskontrollerede hospitaler i bytte for salg af receptpligtig medicin. [40] SEC påstod, at mellem 2009 og 2014 leverede salgsrepræsentanter for BMS’s majoritetsejede joint venture i Kina, BMS China, kontanter, gaver, måltider, rejser, underholdning og konference-sponsorater til sundhedsudbydere. [41] SEC påstod også, at BMS Kina unøjagtigt registrerede disse udgifter som legitime forretningsomkostninger, ikke reagerede på røde flag, der angav bestikkelse, ikke undersøgte krav fra opsagte medarbejdere og var for langsom i sit afhjælpende svar. [42]

Uden at indrømme eller benægte påstandene, løste BMS SEC-påstandene om, at det overtrådte FCPAs interne kontrol og journalføringsbestemmelser ved at gå med til et toårigt selvovervågning og acceptere at betale en bøde på 14 millioner dollars. [43] Ligesom Mead Johnson fremhæver BMS -forliget risikoen for at handle i sundhedssektoren i Kina på grund af omfattende statsinddragelse i branchen og SEC's ekspansive opfattelse af, hvem der kvalificerer sig som udenlandsk embedsmand. [44]

Fokus på at levere "gaver, rejser og underholdning" til embedsmænd. SEC's håndhævelsesaktioner mod BMS og BHP Billiton fremhævede SEC's håndhævelse af angiveligt ulovlige gaver, rejser og underholdning til udenlandske embedsmænd. I maj 2015 påstod SEC, at BHP Billiton manglede tilstrækkelig intern kontrol over sit olympiske lege -program. [45] Selv uden påstand om bestikkelse førte BHP Billitons påståede undladelse af at indføre politikker og procedurer, der er tilstrækkeligt beskyttet mod korruptionsrisiko, til et forlig på 25 millioner dollars, hvilket gør det til det største FCPA -forlig i 2015. [46] SEC påstod, at BHP Billiton inviterede 176 udenlandske embedsmænd, for det meste fra Afrika og Asien, til at deltage i de olympiske lege i Beijing 2008 og i sidste ende sponsorerede 60 fremmede embedsmænd og 24 af deres ægtefæller. [47] Virksomheden betalte mellem $ 720.000 og $ 960.000 i alt for gæstfrihedspakkerne. [48] BHP Billiton indrømmede eller benægtede ikke SEC's påstande.

SEC's ordre påstod, at BHP Billiton undlod at udtænke og vedligeholde interne kontroller og ikke nøjagtigt vedligeholdt bøger og optegnelser relateret til virksomhedens olympiske lege -gæstfrihedsprogram. SEC påstod ikke, at BHP Billiton fik nogen specifik forretning ved levering af gæstfrihedspakker og påstod ikke eksistensen af ​​en noget for noget. SEC's brug af FCPA's bøger og optegnelser og interne kontrolbestemmelser - uden påstand om at bestikkelse fandt sted - til at pålægge agenturets største straf for 2015 fremhæver SECs brede læsning af FCPA's bestemmelser om registrering og intern kontrol.

Yates Memorandum Fornyet vægt på retsforfølgelse af enkeltpersoner

I 2015 afgav DOJ-embedsmænd flere offentlige erklæringer, der igen understregede DOJ's fokus på at anlægge individuelle retsforfølgninger i forbindelse med virksomheders forseelser. Denne strategi blev fremhævet i Yates -notatet, der skitserede DOJ's håndhævelsespolitikker og praksis, og gentog DOJ's fokus på retsforfølgning af personer, der er involveret i virksomheders forseelser. [49] DOJ's vægt på at retsforfølge enkeltpersoner har til formål at imødegå det begrænsede antal individuelle tvangsfuldbyrdelsesforanstaltninger i de seneste år i forhold til antallet af virksomheders håndhævelsesforanstaltninger. På området håndhævelse af korruption har de 84 DOJ FCPA-håndhævelsesaktioner mod virksomheder siden 2004 kun 20 (24 procent) af aktionerne resulteret i anklager mod enkeltpersoner. [50]

Selvom nogle af Yates Memos politikker og praksis sandsynligvis ikke vil gøre meget ved at ændre DOJ's nuværende praksis og adfærd hos samarbejdende virksomheder under undersøgelse, vil andre udtalelser få konsekvenser for FCPA -undersøgelser fremad, som diskuteret nedenfor.

Bekræftende krav om at fremlægge alle relevante fakta vedrørende enkeltpersoner til kredit for virksomhedssamarbejde. Yates -notatet angiver, at en forudsætning for virksomheders "kredit" er, at et selskab skal oplyse alle relevante fakta "vedrørende de personer, der er ansvarlige for forseelsen." [51] I en tale, hun holdt den 10. september, præciserede viceadvokaten generaladvokaten dette krav, da hun erklærede, at et selskab skal forkynde en anklagelig sag mod enkeltpersoner for at modtage nogen samarbejdskredit fra DOJ, hvilket tyder på, at samarbejdskredit nu er et "alt-eller-ingenting" -forslag [52]:

[I] Hvis en virksomhed ønsker kredit for samarbejde, enhver kredit overhovedet, skal den identificere alle personer, der er involveret i forseelsen, uanset deres position, status eller anciennitet i virksomheden og give alle relevante fakta om deres forseelser. Det er alt eller ingenting. Ikke mere vælge og vælge, hvad der bliver afsløret. Ikke mere delvis kredit for samarbejde, der ikke indeholder oplysninger om enkeltpersoner. [53]

Selv om virksomhedssamarbejdeskreditter ikke er betinget af, om noget selskabspersonale i sidste ende bliver retsforfulgt, kan virksomheder, der søger samarbejdskredit, ikke længere "afslutte [en undersøgelse] med en konklusion om virksomhedens ansvar, mens de ikke stopper med at identificere dem, der begik den underliggende adfærd." [ 54] Ifølge DOJ vil der kun blive gjort en undtagelse, hvor "et selskab virkelig ikke er i stand til at identificere de skyldige personer ... og giver [DOJ] de relevante fakta og på anden måde hjælper [regeringen] med at indhente beviser." [55]

Rent praktisk kan forpligtelsen til at aflevere alle relevante fakta vedrørende skyldige personer ikke udgøre en væsentlig ændring for samarbejdsvillige virksomheder. En virksomhed, der samarbejder i en efterforskning, har allerede et lille incitament til at tilbageholde relevante, ikke-privilegerede fakta-herunder fakta, der potentielt kan implicere personer i kriminel aktivitet. Det øgede fokus på individuelle retsforfølgelser og fremlæggelse af beviser til støtte for undersøgelser af enkeltpersoner kan dog have en nedkølingseffekt på medarbejdere med kendskab til eller involvering i den underliggende forseelse. Medarbejdernes nedsatte incitament til at samarbejde med interne undersøgelser - af frygt for egen retsforfølgelse - kan yderligere øge vanskeligheden ved at foretage interne undersøgelser af potentielle FCPA -krænkelser.

Med sin vægt på individuelle retsforfølgninger rejser Yates -notatet også spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det bliver sværere for virksomheder at modtage samarbejdskredit. Many cases involving alleged corporate misconduct lack direct evidence of individual criminal responsibility, as the Deputy Attorney General has acknowledged,[56] and may leave companies at the mercy of the DOJ’s sense of whether the company was "truly [] unable to identify culpable individuals . . . ."[57] Only time will tell whether the DOJ will fairly assess a company’s good faith efforts to uncover evidence of corporate and individual wrongdoing, or whether prosecutors will withhold cooperation credit based on erroneous judgments regarding a company’s compliance with the factors set forth in the Yates Memo.

DOJ to Investigate Individuals From the Outset and Include Plan to Resolve Individual Cases Before Resolving Corporate Cases. The Yates Memo also explains the DOJ’s own approach to investigating individuals involved in corporate criminal conduct.[58] DOJ investigations must "focus on individual wrongdoing from the very beginning of any investigation . . . ."[59] This approach is intended to improve the efficiency of investigations, increase the level of individual cooperation from lower-level employees, and "maximize the chances that the final resolution of an investigation uncovering the misconduct will include civil or criminal charges against not just the corporation but against culpable individuals as well."[60]

Along with this focus at the outset of the investigation, the DOJ now requires prosecutors to present a "clear plan" for resolving related individual cases prior to resolving cases against corporations.[61] With respect to a corporate investigation that has concluded and for which resolution is sought, and if the investigation is ongoing as to individuals, the corporate prosecution memorandum "should include a discussion of the potentially liable individuals, a description of the current status of the investigation regarding their conduct and . . . an investigative plan to bring the matter to resolution."[62] Any decision not to bring civil or criminal claims against individuals must also be memorialized and approved before resolving the corporate case.[63]

Despite the DOJ’s assertions that these measures will improve investigation efficiency and effectiveness, these added mandates could lengthen the time for resolving government investigations, forcing companies to wait in limbo while the government’s investigation into individuals continues. Indeed, the Assistant Attorney General stated that the policies are designed to remedy situations where the DOJ was "quick to resolve cases with corporations" without individual liability.[64] The suggestion that some previous resolutions were too "quick" strongly indicates that the new policy may impact the ability of companies to resolve allegations of misconduct in a timely manner.

Mixed Success with Criminal Enforcement Actions Against Individuals

In 2015, the DOJ continued to make some progress on its pledge to bring enforcement actions against individuals. It announced seven individual FCPA enforcement actions and secured significant prison sentences against former executives. However, the DOJ experienced a significant setback when its only FCPA trial in three years ended with a plea deal after its chief witness admitted he lied on the stand. After the trial, the DOJ acknowledged the challenges in bringing FCPA actions against individuals.

DOJ Announced Seven Individual Enforcement Actions. The DOJ’s seven individual FCPA enforcement actions included actions against a former president and two former senior vice-presidents.[65] Six of these individuals have pled guilty, while the seventh, Dimitrij Harder, a Russian national and former President of Chestnut Group, is fighting the DOJ’s charges.[66] Notably, and in accordance with the recent guidance announced in the Yates Memo, the DOJ announced individual enforcement actions in connection with each of its 2015 corporate enforcement actions. A summary of the seven criminal individual enforcement actions announced in 2015 is located at Chart 2.

Former Executives Received Significant Prison Sentences. In 2015, DOJ secured significant prison sentences against nine individuals who pled guilty to FCPA and other violations. These individuals also disgorged collectively millions of dollars. Four noteworthy cases that involved prison sentences are discussed below.

Three individuals received four-year prison sentences. In March, Benito Chinea, the former CEO of Direct Access Partners, and Joseph DeMeneses, the former Managing Director, each received a four-year prison sentence for conspiring to violate the FCPA and Travel Act in connection with a scheme to bribe a Venezuelan development bank official.[67] Chinea and DeMeneses were also ordered to forfeit $3.6 million and $2.7 million, respectively.[68]

In December, the DOJ announced that Vadim Mikerin, the former President of TENAM Corporation and former director of the Pan American Department of JSC Techsnabexport, had been sentenced to 48 months in prison and ordered to forfeit $2.1 million for conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with more than $2 million in corrupt payments made to influence contracts with a Russian state-owned nuclear energy corporation.[69]

On the other end of the spectrum, in October, James Rama, a former VP for IAP Worldwide, was sentenced to 120 days in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA.[70] Rama’s sentence departed significantly from the federal sentencing guidelines’ recommendation of 57 to 60 months due to his significant cooperation and resulting financial ruin in the aftermath of the enforcement action.[71] In June, IAP Worldwide resolved an FCPA enforcement action with the DOJ by paying a $7.1 million penalty and agreeing to an NPA.[72]

The Eleventh Circuit Upheld a Nine-Year Prison Conviction of a Foreign Government Official Under the U.S. Money Laundering Control Act, Demonstrating the DOJ’s Expansive Approach to Anti-Corruption Enforcement. On February 9, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the nine-year prison sentence of a foreign government official, Haitian national Jean Rene Duperval, under the U.S. Money Laundering Control Act ("MLCA"). [73] This case demonstrates the DOJ’s ability to prosecute foreign government officials in foreign corruption schemes under the MLCA.

At trial, the DOJ proved Duperval, the former Director of International Affairs at the state-owned Telecommunications D'Haiti ("Haiti Teleco"), received $500,000 in bribes from Terra Telecommunications Corp. in return for telecommunications contracts and favorable rates.[74] Since Duperval was a foreign government official according to the DOJ and ineligible for prosecution under the FCPA, the DOJ charged Duperval with violations of the MLCA by establishing that the bribes were proceeds of FCPA violations that had been laundered through U.S. banks.[75] In March 2012, he was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 19 counts of money laundering and was sentenced to nine years in prison.[76] Duperval appealed his conviction on several grounds, including whether there was sufficient evidence to find that Haiti Teleco was a government instrumentality, whether the trial court judge improperly denied Duperval’s requested jury instruction on the facilitating payments exception, and whether his nine-year prison sentence was unreasonable.[77]

In upholding Duperval’s conviction, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Duperval’s argument that he was not a "foreign official" because Haiti Teleco was not an "instrumentality" of the government of Haiti. The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed the definition of "instrumentality" it adopted in United States v. Esquenazi: "an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that performs a function the controlling government treats as its own."[78] Based on this finding, the court concluded that Duperval was a foreign official under the FCPA.[79]

The Eleventh Circuit also rejected Duperval’s argument that the trial court judge should have provided an instruction on the FCPA exception that "allows ‘any facilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official . . . the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action,’"[80] sometimes known as the facilitating payments exception to the FCPA.[81] In rejecting Duperval’s argument, the Eleventh Circuit found that Duperval was "pay[ing] a decision-maker to continue a contract with the government," rather than performing the "routine governmental action" and the "largely non-discretionary, ministerial activities," such as processing visas, that Congress envisioned when it made the exception.[82]

The Eleventh Circuit went on to find that Duperval’s nine-year sentence was substantively reasonable.[83] Duperval's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.[84]

DOJ Trial of Former CEO Ends with Probation. The DOJ’s only FCPA trial in 2015, and its first in three years, ended abruptly in June with a plea deal between the prosecution and the defendant that called for the defendant to serve a three-year term of probation. This deal was struck after the DOJ’s chief witness admitted he lied on the stand. In January 2014, the DOJ charged Joseph Sigelman, the former CEO of PetroTiger Ltd., with conspiracy to violate the FCPA (along with several other counts) for allegedly authorizing bribes to a Colombian national oil company to procure service contracts.[85] Sigelman was the DOJ’s first FCPA trial of an individual since a judge dismissed the DOJ’s case against John Joseph O’Shea, a former general manager of ABB, Inc., in January 2012 because the DOJ’s chief witness could not tie O’Shea to the alleged crimes.[86]

At Sigelman’s trial, the DOJ’s cooperating witness—who previously pled guilty for conspiring to violate the FCPA and received a sentence of two years of probation—admitted that he lied on the stand before the jury in testimony given the day earlier.[87] In the wake of the cooperating witness’s reversal, the trial was adjourned and the DOJ offered Sigelman a plea deal for substantially reduced charges, effectively dropping the FCPA charge.[88] Sigelman accepted the new plea deal and avoided a term of imprisonment, with the trial judge criticizing both the DOJ and the witness.[89] After Sigelman entered his plea, the DOJ declined to bring a corporate prosecution against PetroTiger for FCPA violations.[90]

The Sigelman trial underscores the DOJ’s difficulty in securing guilty verdicts at trial. Since 2011, all DOJ prosecutions of individuals at trial have resulted in mistrials, dismissals, or acquittals of substantive FCPA charges, highlighting the challenges for the DOJ when it has the burden of proof.

DOJ Acknowledged Challenges With FCPA Individual Enforcement Actions. Despite the increased DOJ focus on individual culpability under the FCPA, the DOJ has recognized several challenges in bringing FCPA actions against individuals. First, the DOJ has acknowledged that it is often difficult to obtain the evidence necessary for a conviction. In an attempt to explain the DOJ’s poor trial record in FCPA cases after the Sigelman trial, a DOJ spokesman stated, "FCPA cases, by their very nature, often require proof of criminal acts carried out in foreign countries [and] obtaining foreign evidence—documents and witnesses—poses particular challenges in FCPA cases."[91]

Second, in addition to evidentiary challenges, individuals who violate the FCPA, according to the Assistant Attorney General, "often are located overseas—sometimes in jurisdictions with which the U.S. government has limited relationships." [92] Indeed, extradition of these individuals may prove difficult. For example, in April, an Austrian judge refused to order the extradition of a businessman in the Ukraine natural gas industry for allegedly paying $18.5 million in bribes to Indian government officials, calling the DOJ’s enforcement action "politically motivated" and lacking "sufficient proof."[93]

Finally, it is often difficult to pin improper activity on a particular individual within a vast corporate structure. Depending on the complexity of the corporation and the conduct at issue, internal and government investigations may involve various corporate subsidiaries, multiple levels of management, and complex fact patterns. Individuals outside of the corporate structure may be involved, given that FCPA investigations often encompass "one or more third parties, such as resellers or agents, also located overseas."[94] Consequently, concluding internal and government investigations into potential violations can take several years, which can hinder individual civil and criminal FCPA prosecutions that are subject to a five-year statute of limitations.[95]

These evidentiary and logistical challe nges are significant because while companies may hesitate to contest criminal charges at trial and settle for many reasons, individuals are typically less averse to facing a trial. In addition, the evidentiary proof necessary for conviction at trial is more stringent than evidence proffered at corporate settlement negotiations. Therefore, individual FCPA prosecutions are more likely to be contested in court rather than resolved in settlement or plea negotiations.

DOJ and SEC Emphasized Value of Self-Disclosure and Cooperation in FCPA Enforcement Actions

In 2015, the DOJ and SEC placed an increased emphasis on the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation for companies that face possible prosecution for violations of the FCPA. They also sought to articulate some benefits, and consequences, of a company’s decision to self-disclose and cooperate. In doing so, the DOJ and SEC elaborated on their longstanding policies that, in order to receive maximum cooperation credit and possibly a declination, NPA, or DPA, companies must (1) self-disclose potential violations and (2) cooperate in the ensuing investigation. A failure on either aspect, according to the DOJ and SEC, could result in the company receiving little to no cooperation credit and a stiffer charging decision and financial penalty.

Whether to self-disclose a potential FCPA violation to U.S. regulators typically involves a multi-factored and otherwise complicated analysis. Companies must weigh the potential risks of self-disclosure (e.g., DOJ and/or SEC investigation, fines, penalties, remedial action, civil suits, administrative sanctions, reputational damage, investigations by foreign regulators) against the benefits they may receive from self-reporting and cooperating with the government (e.g., cooperation credit, narrower charges, limited sanctions, and a declination, NPA, or DPA). Notwithstanding the DOJ’s attempt to cite specific examples, as discussed below, uncertainty often confronts companies when they try to determine the benefits of disclosing otherwise unknown FCPA violations and whether, on balance, such self-disclosure is advisable. Nevertheless, statements by the DOJ and SEC in 2015 regarding the potential benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation on charging decisions should assist companies with their analyses.

DOJ and SEC Emphasized that Self-Disclosure is Required for Maximum Cooperation Credit and Clarified What Qualifies as "Self-Disclosure." This past year, the DOJ and SEC emphasized the vital role self-disclosure can play in enabling a corporation to receive cooperation credit. In a November speech, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, which supervises the DOJ Fraud Section’s FCPA unit, explained that companies that fail to self-disclose a known FCPA violation but otherwise cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation will not be eligible for the maximum amount of cooperation credit.[96] Touting the benefits of self-disclosure, the Assistant Attorney General pointed to the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute or seek an NPA or DPA against one company based on the company’s voluntary disclosure and full cooperation.[97] In contrast, she highlighted another company’s lack of disclosure and cooperation, which resulted in the DOJ’s largest FCPA penalty to date, $772 million in 2014.[98]

In a speech given that same day, the SEC Director of Enforcement went even further and stated that a company skal self-disclose to be eligible for an NPA or DPA with the SEC. [99] The Director emphasized that if the government uncovers an FCPA violation on its own, the SEC will not only refuse to give the company cooperation credit, but also likely will impose harsher consequences as a result. The Director made clear that companies are "gambling" if they choose not to self-report.[100]

Last year, FCPA enforcement authorities also clarified what qualifies as "self-disclosure." The Assistant Attorney General stated that disclosure should occur within a "reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of an FCPA violation."[101] She explained that a company need not call authorities on Day One of discovering the illegal conduct, but that timely disclosure after an internal investigation is required to obtain cooperation credit. [102] She also made clear that self-disclosure must occur before a government investigation—whether by the DOJ, SEC, or any other agency—is initiated, and that the disclosure cannot be required by law, agreement, or contract.[103] The SEC—like the DOJ—is confident that between whistleblowers, foreign law enforcement, competitors, current and former employees, foreign media, and others, it will uncover FCPA violations eventually.[104] These comments suggest that FCPA enforcement authorities are focused on the voluntary nature of a company’s disclosure. As such, waiting until a whistleblower threatens dissemination may be too late for self-disclosure – an important consideration given that FCPA-related whistleblower complaints are on the rise. According to the SEC, whistleblowers provided 186 FCPA-related whistleblower tips in Fiscal Year 2015, the highest number of FCPA-related tips in the four-year history of the SEC’s Whistleblower Program.[105] Under this program, an individual who voluntarily provides original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action resulting in a monetary sanction above $1 million is entitled to 10 to 30 percent of the total recovery.[106] To date, the SEC has not yet granted an award to a whistleblower in an FCPA-related enforcement action.

DOJ and SEC Pronounce Support for Tailored Internal Investigations. In addition to explaining the expectations for corporate cooperation credit as it relates to individuals, the DOJ provided more clarity on its expectations for cooperation. Although the DOJ will not provide cooperation credit where it is not warranted, the Assistant Attorney General also stated that the DOJ does "not expect companies to aimlessly boil the ocean" during an investigation. [107] She emphasized that the DOJ does not want, much less expect, a company to embark on an unnecessarily broad and costly "investigative frolic."[108] Instead, the DOJ will look to whether a company engaged in a quality, tailored, and thorough investigation when determining cooperation credit.[109] If a company is unclear what that entails in a given situation, the Assistant Attorney General encouraged the company to call the DOJ to engage in an open dialogue with the DOJ.[110] The DOJ also pledged to provide "guideposts" to a company under investigation and make clear the DOJ’s areas of interest while also "pressure test[ing]" the company’s investigation.[111] It remains to be seen whether this pronouncement will have a meaningful impact on prosecutors who generally bring to bear their own views, on behalf of the DOJ, about the proper scope of a company’s investigation.

Tangible Benefits of Self-Disclosure and Cooperation. Last year, FCPA enforcement officials acknowledged the complexity surrounding a company’s decision to self-disclose and cooperate, and sought to encourage increased self-disclosure and cooperation by providing companies with specific examples of the benefits associated with such actions. The Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s FCPA Unit stated that self-disclosure and cooperation will result in measurable cooperation credits to a company.[112] The Deputy Chief observed that two companies could have saved $565 million (73 percent) and $20 million (32 percent) from their respective settlements of $772 million and $62 million had they voluntarily disclosed and cooperated with the DOJ.[113] In a May speech, the Assistant Attorney General further explained the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation. She stated that when self-disclosure is paired with cooperation, "[t]here is a real chance that the company might not be prosecuted at all—not just an NPA or DPA—but a declination."[114] However, as the Assistant Attorney General explained, cooperation must ultimately be candid, timely, and complete.[115]

The SEC likewise touted the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation for corporations. In line with the DOJ’s standards, the SEC Director of Enforcement stated that a company must provide all relevant facts and share information regarding individual wrongdoers to receive full cooperation credit.[116] In a speech earlier in the year, the Director discussed the type of conduct the SEC regards as cooperation, referring to the agency’s NPA with Ralph Lauren Corporation in 2013 and its DPA with PBSJ Corporation in 2015 as positive examples.[117] According to the Director, both companies not only self-reported, but also quickly provided the factual findings of their internal investigations, including providing foreign language documents and summaries of interviews, making witnesses available to the SEC, and bringing some witnesses to the U.S. for interviews.[118] The Director emphasized that, as a result, both companies only paid 10 percent of their disgorgement as penalties—a significant reduction from the typical 100 percent ratio.[119] The Director also referred to one instance in which a company’s self-disclosure and cooperation was the driving force behind the SEC requiring disgorgement but no penalty.[120]

DOJ Pledged More Transparency In Corporate Charging Decisions. Despite efforts to describe the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation, the DOJ recognized that companies could benefit from specific guideposts and objective standards. In an April speech, the Assistant Attorney General acknowledged that corporate decision-making would be well served by increased transparency as to the weight the DOJ applies to a company’s self-disclosure and cooperation and pledged to provide more detail.[121] She explained that by making transparency a DOJ priority, companies will have greater insight into the benefits of engaging with the agency and the consequences of not receiving cooperation credit.[122] According to the Assistant Attorney General, the DOJ believes more companies are likely to disclose wrongdoing and cooperate if they have a better idea of the benefits they may receive in return.[123] Companies will also be able to evaluate the consequences they might face if they choose not to cooperate with the DOJ.[124] In return, she pledged to provide "even more detailed explanations" of the factors that led to a guilty plea, NPA, or DPA, and to provide more details regarding declinations.[125]

Consistent with its pledge for more transparency, the DOJ indicated it could soon release information that will increase the incentive for companies to be forthcoming about wrongdoing.[126] A draft DOJ policy that has yet to be released recommends that prosecutors will decline to bring charges against a company that self-discloses FCPA violations, cooperates in any ensuing investigation, and disgorges ill-gotten gains.[127] The overall goal is to provide more certainty that self-disclosure and cooperation will not result in a penalty or criminal charge.[128] On the other hand, the draft policy also contemplates prosecutors imposing harsher treatment on companies that make the decision not to self-disclose.[129]

Notwithstanding the DOJ and SEC’s attempts to tout the benefits of disclosure and cooperation, the agencies did not elaborate on what specific guidelines must be met in order to receive a declination, NPA, or DPA or reduced penalty, leaving companies with no objective standards to measure the value of self-disclosure and cooperation. If the DOJ or SEC do provide clarity regarding the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation, companies will have even more information to consider in their decisions whether to self-disclose and cooperate.

Implications of the Increased International Anti-Corruption Enforcement

In addition to U.S. FCPA enforcement, companies with foreign operations must also be aware of the risks of non-compliance with foreign countries’ anti-corruption laws. Increasingly, the FCPA is no longer the only anti-corruption enforcement mechanism impacting multinational companies. Since 2010, many countries—most notably the U.K., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico—have implemented or enhanced their own enforcement regimes targeting government corruption and are enforcing them against multinational corporations and their executives.

One offshoot of the increase in international anti-corruption efforts is the rise in multi-jurisdictional investigations. These investigations greatly increase the complexity of compliance for multinational companies. Companies also need to be aware of the possibility of facing anti-corruption enforcement actions in more than one country, as 2015 evidenced that disclosures or settlements in one country may lead to enforcement actions in other countries.

Major international anti-corruption developments in 2015 included:

  • New or enhanced anti-corruption laws in China, Mexico, and South Korea
  • The first DPA in the U.K.
  • A Chinese government official sentenced to 16 years in prison for receiving bribes as part of China’s "Operation Fox Hunt" anti-corruption crackdown
  • An investigation into state-owned oil company Petrobras in Brazil as part of "Operation Car Wash" and
  • An investigation by Colombian authorities of PetroTiger in 2015 after the DOJ charged two PetroTiger executives in 2014.

Increased Global Anti-Corruption Enforcement. In the past ten years, several countries have adopted or enhanced anti-corruption laws and regulations and have strengthened their anti-corruption enforcement regimes. There are 41 signatories to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions ("OECD Anti-Bribery Convention"), which requires signatory countries to make bribery of foreign officials a crime under their respective laws.[130] The U.K., Brazil, and Russia are signatories and have adopted anti-corruption laws. In 2015, Mexico and South Korea, also signatory countries, adopted new anti-corruption laws and regulations,[131] while China, a non-signatory country, reformed its anti-corruption laws.[132] These examples demonstrate the increasing anti-corruption enforcement activity in foreign countries that multinational corporations must consider. In these countries in particular, multinational companies must contemplate the risks of prosecution under local anti-corruption laws as well as under the FCPA.

Chart 4: OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Signatories

Brazilian Authorities Continued "Operation Car Wash" Anti-Corruption Investigation. One of the biggest international anti-corruption enforcement actions of the year was the ongoing investigation by Brazilian authorities into corruption allegations against the Brazilian-controlled oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras"). This investigation spurred other anti-corruption investigations in the country under Operação Lava Jato ("Operation Car Wash").[133] Brazilian authorities began investigating Petrobras after its former director, Paulo Roberto Costa, was arrested in March 2014 on allegations of corruption spanning over a decade.[134] After further investigation, additional allegations arose that engineering and construction companies received inflated contracts from Petrobras and that these companies provided kickbacks to Petrobras executives and politicians.[135]

In May 2015, Brazilian investigators alleged that a staggering 6.19 billion reals ($2.1 billion) in bribes were paid in the corruption scheme.[136] A Brazilian prosecutor announced criminal charges against 13 people, including four former Brazilian congressmen.[137] The prosecutor also stated that the Brazilian government was seeking to return the bribes to the Brazilian government through fines and the return of stolen funds.[138] Meanwhile, Brazil’s chief prosecutor asked for 28 separate inquiries to be opened into the activities of politicians who allegedly benefitted from the scheme.[139] In June, Brazilian prosecutors notified the DOJ that they had evidence suggesting at least four foreign companies allegedly paid bribes to win Petrobras contracts.[140] This notification may lead to FCPA charges against these companies and associated individuals in the U.S.

U.K. Entered Into First DPA. Another noteworthy international anti-corruption enforcement story of 2015 involved the U.K.’s first DPA. On February 24, 2014, the U.K. introduced DPAs to resolve corporate enforcement actions.[141] These agreements are meant to provide companies with the opportunity to avoid formal prosecution and any resulting admission of guilt.[142] The U.K.’s first DPA was approved more than a year and a half later in November, in connection with allegations that a bank "failed to prevent bribery" in connection with a payment by its African affiliate to a local partner to induce government officials to accept the bank’s proposal for a private placement transaction.[143] As the Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") observed: "[the landmark DPA] will serve as a template for future agreements."[144] Separately, the DOJ closed its investigation and settled a related enforcement action by the SEC regarding alleged disclosures in connection with the private placement.[145] The SFO noted that it worked with the DOJ and SEC throughout its investigation and appreciated their assistance.[146]

Operation Foxhunt Anti-Corruption Crackdown Continued in China. "Operation Foxhunt"—an anti-corruption initiative implemented in 2014 by the Chinese government—continued in 2015.[147] This initiative was designed to track down wealthy Chinese officials or criminals suspected of corruption who may have fled abroad.[148] In January, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security announced that it would work with U.S. law enforcement to catch corrupt Chinese officials who may be fugitives in the U.S., which has become one of the most popular destinations for corrupt officials fleeing China.[149] In August, however, the Obama administration decried the strong-arm tactics that the Chinese government used to convince fugitives to return to China, including threats against family members.[150] According to the Chinese Ministry of Public Security, more than 930 fugitives have been brought back to China since 2014.[151]

Meanwhile, there were several notable corruption convictions of government officials last year in China, as the country continued the crackdown on corruption it began in 2012 when President Xi Jinping took office.[152] In October, Jiang Jiemin, previously head of China National Petroleum Corporation, was convicted of "receiving bribes, possessing large amounts of assets of unknown provenance, and abusing power as a state-owned company employee."[153] News sources stated that Jiang had collected $2.3 million in bribes.[154] Jiang was sentenced to 16 years in prison for his crimes.[155]


Klassifikation

TMD is categorized as intra-articular (within the joint) or extra-articular (involving the surrounding musculature).7 Musculoskeletal conditions are the most common cause of TMD, accounting for at least 50% of cases.8 , 9 Articular disk displacement involving the condyle𠄽isk relationship is the most common intra-articular cause of TMD.10

In 2013, the International Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Dysfunction Consortium Network published an updated classification structure for TMD (eTable A) .


Revere Chief of Infrastructure and Engineering Donny Ciaramella, DPW General Foreman Joe Lake, and the city’s Engineering and Water and Sewer Departments will receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council. City Council President Anthony Zambuto said the individuals&hellip

Special to The Journal The Revere Board of Health announced they lifted the State of Emergency issued last year on March 19, 2020. As of today, masks are no longer required at City Hall and other city buildings for fully&hellip


2015 Oklahoma StatutesTitle 26. Elections§26-14-105. Voters absent from county on election day - Application for ballot.

Any registered voter may apply for an absentee ballot in person at the county election board, by United States mail, by telegraph , by facsimile device as defined in Section 1862 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes or by a means of electronic communication designated by the Secretary of the State Election Board. The Secretary of the State Election Board shall prescribe a form to be used for the application, although any application setting forth substantially the same facts shall be valid.

Added by Laws 1974, c. 201, § 5, operative July 1, 1974. Renumbered from § 327.5 of this title by Laws 1976, c. 90, § 11, emerg. eff. May 6, 1976. Amended by Laws 1979, c. 240, § 26, emerg. eff. June 1, 1979 Laws 1981, c. 344, § 4, eff. Oct. 1, 1982 Laws 1982, S.J.R. No. 29, § 1 Laws 1983, c. 171, § 22 Laws 1984, c. 204, § 4, operative July 1, 1984 Laws 1985, c. 78, § 1, eff. July 1, 1985 Laws 1991, c. 277, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991 Laws 1995, c. 290, § 14, eff. Nov. 1, 1995 Laws 2013, c. 200, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.

Ansvarsfraskrivelse: These codes may not be the most recent version. Oklahoma may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions .


Mother’s Day Around the World

While versions of Mother’s Day are celebrated worldwide, traditions vary depending on the country. In Thailand, for example, Mother’s Day is always celebrated in August on the birthday of the current queen, Sirikit.

Another alternate observance of Mother’s Day can be found in Ethiopia, where families gather each fall to sing songs and eat a large feast as part of Antrosht, a multi-day celebration honoring motherhood.

In the United States, Mother’s Day continues to be celebrated by presenting mothers and other women with gifts and flowers, and it has become one of the biggest holidays for consumer spending. Families also celebrate by giving mothers a day off from activities like cooking or other household chores.

At times, Mother’s Day has also been a date for launching political or feminist causes. In 1968 Coretta Scott King, wife of Martin Luther King, Jr., used Mother’s Day to host a march in support of underprivileged women and children. In the 1970s women’s groups also used the holiday as a time to highlight the need for equal rights and access to childcare.


Excel DATE formula examples

Below you will find a few examples of using DATE formulas in Excel beginning with the simplest ones.

Example 1. A simple DATE formula to return a serial number for a date

This is the most obvious use of the DATE function in Excel.

For example, to return a serial number corresponding to 20-May-2015, use this formula:

Instead of specifying the values representing the year, month and day directly in a formula, you can have some or all arguments driven by of other Excel date functions. For instance, combine the YEAR and TODAY to get a serial number for the first day of the current year.

And this formula outputs a serial number for the first day of the current month in the current year:

=DATE(YEAR(TODAY()), MONTH(TODAY(), 1)

Example 2. Excel DATE formula to return a date based on values in other cells

The DATE function is very helpful for calculating dates where the year, month, and day values are stored in other cells.

For example, to find the serial number for the date, taking the values in cells A2, A3 and A4 as the year, month and day arguments, respectively, the formula is:

Example 3. DATE formula to convert a string or number to a date

Another scenario when the Excel DATE function proves useful is when the dates are stored in the format that Microsoft Excel does not recognize, for instance DDMMYYYY. In this case, you can use DATE in liaison with other functions to convert a date stored as a numeric string or number into a date:

=DATE(RIGHT(A2,4), MID(A2,3,2), LEFT(A2,2))

Example 4. Adding and subtracting dates in Excel

As already mentioned, Microsoft Excel stores dates as serial numbers and operates on those numbers in formulas and calculations. That is why when you want to add or subtract some days to/from a given date, you need to convert that date to a serial number first by using the Excel DATE function. For eksempel:

    Adding days to a date:

If you are adding or subtracting two dates that are stored in some cells, then the formula is as simple as =A1+B1 or A1-B1, respectively.

For more information, please see:

Advanced Excel DATE formulas

And here are a few more examples where Excel DATE is used in combination with other functions in more complex formulas:

    - the example demonstrates how you can get a date in Excel based on the week number, and also how to get a month corresponding to the week number. - how to get the 1st day of the month by the month number, from a given date and based on today's date. - how to get the number of days based on the month number or on a date. - two Date formulas to pin down leap years in Excel. - how to change a month number to the month name by using a combination of Excel TEXT and DATE functions. - this example explains a DATE/YEAR formula to get a day's number.

Big Data: 20 Mind-Boggling Facts Everyone Must Read

Big data is not a fad. We are just at the beginning of a revolution that will touch every business and every life on this planet.

But loads of people are still treating the concept of big data as something they can choose to ignore — when actually, they’re about to be run over by the steamroller that is big data.

Don’t believe me? Here are 20 stats that should convince anyone that big data needs their attention:

  1. The data volumes are exploding, m ore data has been created in the past two years than in the entire previous history of the human race.
  2. Data is growing faster than ever before and by the year 2020, about 1.7 megabytes of new information will be created every second for every human being on the planet.
  3. By then, our accumulated digital universe of data will grow from 4.4 zettabyets today to around 44 zettabytes, or 44 trillion gigabytes.
  4. Every second we create new data. For example, we perform 40,000 search queries every second (on Google alone), which makes it 3.5 searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year.
  5. In Aug 2015, over 1 billion people used

My prediction? At the rate at which data and our ability to anlayze it are growing, businesses of all sizes — large and small — will be using some form of data analytics to impact their business in the next five years.

The question isn’t whether or not big data is here to stay the question is are you ready.


Hjemmeside

Seventh Generation disinfecting products are EPA registered broad spectrum disinfectants can be used against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, on hard, nonporous surfaces. For more information on COVID-19 and the EPA list of disinfectants, see this article here.

There continues to be unprecedented demand for essential home cleaning products. Please know that the Seventh Generation team and our retail partners are continually working to re-stock and make our products available to you. Know that you and your families remain on the forefront of our minds in all that we do.

A name can say a lot about a company—where it comes from, what it makes—but for us, Seventh Generation is far more than just a name. It embodies the soul and spirt of who we are, what we strive to be, and what sets us apart. We’ve always had the belief that you can’t live a healthy life on a sick planet. Every day that I come to work I’m reminded & inspired by the work our community does to nurture people & planet in all that we do. That mission inspired the origin of our name thirty years ago and continues to guide us in every product we make, and every action we take. It inspires our belief in a seventh generation to come.


Se videoen: Miminko v brisku -


Kommentarer:

  1. Nosh

    Autoritativt indlæg :), sjovt ...

  2. Sumernor

    Between us speaking, I would try to solve this problem itself.

  3. Lyza

    Jeg har aldrig set sådan noget før

  4. Jem

    Unsuccessful idea

  5. Faujora

    Remove everything, that a theme does not concern.

  6. Cashel

    Same and so



Skriv en besked