K.C. Turan, Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer & Chief Privacy Officer at Dun & Bradstreet will be a speaker at the upcoming Marcus Evans 5th Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) & Anti-Corruption Compliance Conference on September 15-16, 2010 in San Francisco, CA. Below is an excerpt of an interview in which he talks about how companies should adequately mitigate potential anti-corruption risks through proper M&A due diligence, as lapses can have severe and far-reaching adverse implications.
- As countries strengthen their own anti-corruption enforcement activities, can this complicate compliance efforts for companies?
- KCT: Yes and no. It certainly means that companies need to be vigilant in their anti-corruption compliance and M&A due diligence initiatives, but I think this remains true even if the US were the only country with vigorous enforcement activities. We’re noticing a good deal of convergence in that a number of foreign regulatory agencies are now replicating, and cooperating with, the US regulatory agencies’ enforcement culture and actions. UK and German regulators, for instance, appear to be stepping up their anti-corruption enforcement activities. That said, companies can try to minimize the jurisdictional burden by applying a strict, comprehensive and uniform compliance standard across their global operations. If they’re adhering to such an adequate uniform standard, then jurisdictional enforcement complications can be somewhat contained. It’s important to note that this is always case- and fact-specific. Given the variable attendant risks that are specific to particular markets, you may need to employ different compliance and oversight measures in countries such as Russia, India and China as opposed to other countries with traditionally lower corruption risk. If the actual legal requirements and prohibitions in the other countries are substantially different, then this could certainly complicate compliance efforts. The fact that other countries are strengthening their enforcement activities, however, primarily serves to amplify the importance of implementing and maintaining an effective and comprehensive compliance program across an enterprise’s global operations.
- Will increased competition caused by a worldwide recession only serve to heighten the pressure to use bribery as a vehicle for obtaining and retaining business?
- KCT: Theoretically, yes. Historically speaking, a number of studies have shown that recessions and economic downturns have induced irresponsible actors to engage in questionable and prohibited activity in order to benefit their business. Bad actors may be inclined to engage in more bad activity and not-so-bad actors may be inclined to engage in questionable activity in which they otherwise wouldn’t normally engage. This clearly underscores the need to be increasingly vigilant in one’s compliance efforts. A robust, comprehensive and effective anti-corruption compliance program and a larger corporate culture of ethics and integrity will proactively factor these external and economic variables into the mix and serve to preemptively mitigate such risks.
- Are there industries that have proven particularly vulnerable to FCPA investigations? If so, why is that?
- KCT: Generally speaking, highly regulated industries that typically involve the need to routinely interact with foreign governmental entities and/or obtain foreign governmental approval for operational initiatives tend to lend themselves to greater corruption risk and anti-corruption regulatory scrutiny. Some examples are the energy, oil, utilities, defense and aerospace industries, among others. That said, any company within any industry can potentially be subjected to FCPA and international anti-corruption regulatory inquiries or investigations. This is why it’s extremely important for all companies to have strong and effective anti-corruption compliance programs.
- The UK Anti-Bribery Act was passed in April of this year and has gone farther than the FCPA in its measures to tackle corruption. What further steps, if any, should the FCPA take to aggressively combat this problem?
- KCT: Many companies proactively designed their anti-corruption compliance programs to comply with the UK Act’s requirements prior to its passage, as the prohibition of “facilitating payments” and commercial bribery were already considered to be best practices despite the fact that they weren’t explicitly prohibited by the FCPA. Furthermore, US authorities can prosecute commercial bribery in other ways, such as the wire fraud statutes. Most companies will hold themselves to the most restrictive standard across their global operations, so I’m not sure that the FCPA necessarily requires enhancement or needs to replicate the UK Act’s provisions. This is particularly true given the close cooperation that appears to be developing between the US, UK and other international anti-corruption regulators. If the cross-jurisdictional enforcement actions are generally consistent and coordinated, then I’m not sure that the FCPA itself requires revisions at this time. I think companies are acutely aware of the potential implications and risks of corruption, in addition to the underlying need to mitigate such risks through the implementation of an effective anti-corruption compliance program.
- Are organizations looking to get opinion releases from the Department of Justice in advance of purchasing a target company?
- KCT: I think organizations are increasingly receptive to this idea. Given the substantial risks and implications triggered by inadequate due diligence, advance regulatory opinions are one way in which an organization can proactively and preemptively address potential issues or “red flags” that they’ve identified. The final decision as to whether an organization needs to secure an advance regulatory opinion will obviously be case- and fact-specific, but it’s best to err on the side of caution when dealing with unknown variables and high risks. While an advance opinion won’t be required in all situations, I generally think it’s best to take a preemptive strike when dealing with such unknown variables as opposed to subsequently addressing regulatory issues on the back end. This is particularly true when it’s a substantial acquisition that’s strategically critical to your business, which most acquisitions tend to be. In addition to securing a helpful regulatory assessment of the issue(s) in question, it can be argued that the organization will build up a certain amount of “goodwill equity” with the regulatory authorities in proactively engaging them on the front end and demonstrating that the entity is a responsible actor who takes these issues seriously.
Join K.C Turan, Derek Devgun from Medtronic and Kelly Austin from General Electric as they discuss the appropriate level of due diligence to conduct as well as managing FCPA risks associated with mergers and acquisitions at the Marcus Evans 5th Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) & Anti-Corruption Compliance Conference that will take place on September 15-16, 2010 in San Francisco, CA, USA
For further information contact:
Michele Westergaard
Event Marketing Coordinator
455 North CityFront Plaza Drive
9th Floor NBC Tower
Chicago, IL, 60611
Telephone: 312-540-3000 ext. 6625
Fax: 312-552-2155
[email protected]