5 Mei 2015 Dag 105 van die sewende jaar - Geskiedenis

5 Mei 2015 Dag 105 van die sewende jaar - Geskiedenis

President Barack Obama lag saam met, links na regs, adviseur van die nasionale veiligheid, Susan E. Rice, genl. Joseph F. Dunford, jr., Genl. Paul J. Selva, sekretaris van verdediging, Ashton Carter, en vise -president Joe Biden in die ovaalkantoor voor maak hul nominasies bekend as voorsitter en ondervoorsitter van die gesamentlike stafhoofde, 5 Mei 2015


11:00 ontvang die PRESIDENT en die VICE PRESIDENT die presidensiële daaglikse briefing
Ovaal kantoor

12:00 maak die PRESIDENT 'n personeelaankondiging
Roostuin

16:15 vergader die PRESIDENT met die minister van verdediging, Carter
Ovaal kantoor

17:25 DIE PRESIDENT bied 'n Cinco de Mayo -onthaal aan
Oos kamer


5 slegste uitvoerende hoofde wat herbesoek word - werkskeppers of moordenaars hierdie arbeidsdag?

Dit is Arbeidsdag, en dit is 'n tyd waarin ons natuurlik aan ons werk dink.

Wat werkskepping betref, is geen rol meer krities as die uitvoerende hoof nie. Geen onderneming sal 'n groeifase binnegaan deur meer produkte te verkoop en werk te vergroot nie, tensy die uitvoerende hoof instem om te belê. Net so sal geen onderneming krimp nie, wat werksverliese as gevolg van afdankings en massa -afleggings opdoen, tensy die uitvoerende hoof instem tot vermindering en kosteverlagings. Beide besluite is in die hande van die uitvoerende hoof, en dit is sy/haar vaardigheid wat bepaal of 'n onderneming werksgeleenthede byvoeg of uitvee.

Meer as 2 jaar gelede (5 Mei 2012) het ek 'Die 5 uitvoerende hoofde wat afgedank moet word' gepubliseer. Nie verrassend nie, sedertdien het indiensneming by al 5 van hierdie ondernemings die ekonomiese groei vertraag, en in alle gevalle het indiensneming afgeneem. Tog bly 3 van hierdie uitvoerende hoofde in hul werk - ondanks swak (en in sommige gevalle sombere) prestasie. En al 5 die maatskappye het te kampe met aansienlike stryd, indien nie dreigende mislukking nie.

#5 - John Chambers by Cisco

In 2012 was dit duidelik dat die markverskuiwing na openbare netwerke en wolkrekenaars die gebruik van die netwerktoerusting vir ewig verander het, wat van Cisco 'n moderne groeiverhaal gemaak het onder langtermyn-uitvoerende hoof. Sedertdien was daar geen duidelike verbetering in die fortuin van Cisco nie. Ondanks 2 omstrede herorganisasies en 3 rondes ontslag, is Cisco vandag nie beter in staat om te groei as voorheen nie.

Die herorganisasies en afdankings van CEO Chambers lyk toenemend na soveel bewerings om die nalatenskap van die onderneming te behou, eerder as 'n duidelike visie van waar die onderneming daarna sal groei. Die moraal van werknemers het afgeneem, die verkoopgroei het agteruitgegaan, en hoewel die aandeel herstel het vanaf die laagtepunte van 2012, is dit steeds ten minste 10% minder as die hoogtepunte van 2010 - selfs al bereik die S&P rekordhoogtes. Terwyl sy ampstermyn begin het met 'n geweldige groeiverhaal, staan ​​Cisco vandag voor die deur om relevansie te verloor, aangesien opgewondenheid na wolkdiensverskaffers soos Amazon draai. En die afname in werkgeleenthede by Cisco is nog 'n teken van die behoefte aan nuwe leierskap.

#4 Jeff Immelt by General Electric

Toe Immelt, uitvoerende hoof, by Jack Welch oorneem, moes hy 'n paar moeilike skoene volstaan. Jack Welch se ampstermyn was 'n ontploffing in waardeskepping vir die laaste oorblywende oorspronklike komponentmaatskappy van Dow Jones Industrial. Die inkomste het elke jaar gegroei, gewoonlik in dubbelsyfers. Die wins het toegeneem, indiensneming het geweldig gegroei en beide verskaffers en beleggers het gegroei namate die onderneming gegroei het.

Maar dit het alles onder Immelt vasgesteek. GE het nie daarin geslaag om selfs een groot nuwe mark te ontwikkel nie, of hom as die toonaangewende onderneming onder Welch te posisioneer. Die omset was meer as $ 150 miljard in 2009 en 2010, maar het sedertdien gedaal. In 2013 het die inkomste gedaal tot $ 142 miljard van $ 145 miljard in 2012. Om die inkomste te behou, is die onderneming genoodsaak om elke jaar voort te gaan met die verkoop van besighede en die vermindering van werknemers. Die totale indiensneming in 2014 is nou minder as in 2012.

Immelt bly egter sy werk behoue ​​bly, alhoewel die voorraad 'n agterstand was. Vanaf die byna $ 60 het dit 'n hoogtepunt bereik by sy aankoms, die voorraad het gewankel. Dit het in 2007 teruggekeer na $ 40, maar het tot minder as $ 10 gedaal, aangesien die afhanklikheid van die uitvoerende hoof op finansiële dienste die eens groot vervaardigingsonderneming in 2009. byna bankrot gemaak het. meer as die helfte van die 2007 -waarde, en onder 1/3 die hoogste tyd. Waar is die werksgeleenthede? GE nie.

#3 Mike Duke by Wal-Mart

Meneer Duke het Wal-Mart verlaat, maar nie in goeie toestand nie. Sedert 2012 is die onderneming deur skandale geteister, aangesien dit aan die lig gekom het, het die maatskappy waarskynlik staatsamptenare in Mexiko omgekoop. Intussen het dit nie sy werkspraktyke by die National Labour Relations Board verdedig nie, en is dit steeds gestry oor beweerde diskriminasie van vroulike werknemers. Die werksgeleenthede van die onderneming is gereeld die teiken van vakbonde en diegene wat 'n hoër minimum loon ondersteun.

Die maatskappy het ses agtereenvolgende kwartale van dalende verkeer ondervind, omdat die verkope per winkel steeds agteruitgaan - wat die leierskap se onvermoë toon om mense opgewonde te maak om in hul winkels te gaan koop terwyl groei na dollarwinkels verskuif. Die aandeel was $ 70 in 2012 en is nou slegs $ 75,60, alhoewel die S & ampP 500 met ongeveer 50%gestyg het. Tot dusver het stadswinkels in kleiner formaat nie veel aandag getrek nie, en die onderneming bly ver agter Amazon se leier in aanlynverkope. WalMart lyk toenemend soos 'n reus wat vasgevang is in sy historiese huis, wat vinnig besig is om te verval.

Een groot vraag om te vra is wie vir WalMart wil werk? In 2013 het die onderneming gedreig om al sy DC -winkels te sluit as die stadsraad 'n hoër minimum loon sou betaal. Sedertdien het groot stede (San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, ens.) Plaaslike wetgewing óf geslaag, óf besig om te verloop, wat die minimumloon tot $ 12,50-$ 15,00/uur verhoog. Maar WalMart het geen reaksie op hoe dit winste sal skep namate die koste styg nie.

#2 Ed Lampert by Sears (die NUWE #1!)

Nege reguit kwartaallikse verliese. Dit sê omtrent alles vir die sukkelende Sears. Sedert die kolom 5/2012 het die uitvoerende hoof verskeie winkels toegemaak, en die verkope daal steeds by die wat nog oop is. Bedryfskundiges noem Sears nou irrelevant, en die vraag is of dit binnekort Radio Shack in die vergetelheid sal neem.

Die uitvoerende hoof, Lampert, het die Sears -handelsmerk sowel as dié van sy naamgenote soos Kenmore en Diehard vernietig. Hy het duisende werknemers ontslaan terwyl hy winkels gekonsolideer het, maar hy kon geen waarde uit die ongebruikte vaste eiendom verkry nie. Intussen was die leierspan die belangrikste voorbeeld van "'n draaideur by die hoofkwartier." Vanaf ongeveer $ 50 per aandeel 5/2012 (ver teen die hoogtepunt van $ 190 in 2007), het die aandeel tot die middel van $ 30 gedaal, wat ongeveer was in die eerste jaar van Lampert se leierskap (2004.)

#1 Steve Ballmer by Microsoft

In 2013 het Steve Ballmer, wat ek vroeër die ergste uitvoerende hoof genoem het, bedank as uitvoerende hoof van Microsoft. Nadat hy vervang is, bedank hy binne 'n jaar as 'n raadslid. Beide geleenthede het ontleder se entoesiasme veroorsaak, en die aandeel het gestyg.

Ballmer het Microsoft egter in 'n baie erger toestand gelaat ná sy dekade van leierskap. Microsoft het die markverskuiwing na mobiele toestelle misgeloop, deur te veel te belê in Windows 8 om PC-verkope te versterk en Nokia teen 'n premie te koop om die mark te probeer haal. Ongelukkig was Windows 8 nie 'n sukses nie, veral op mobiele toestelle waar dit minder as 5% het. Oppervlak -tablette is neergeskryf, en nou neem die konsoleverkope af namate spelers selfoon maak.

As gevolg hiervan is die nuwe uitvoerende hoof genoodsaak om in alle afdelings afdankings te doen - veral in die mobiele toestel (voorheen Nokia). Werkgroei blyk by Microsoft baie onwaarskynlik te wees. Verswakkende posisies in alle markte dui op meer afdankings vir die eens formidabele markleier.

Forbes -kollega Steve Denning het 'n uitstekende rubriek geskryf oor die transformasie van uitvoerende hoofde van diegene wat sake doen, na diegene wat hul besighede neem. Veels te veel uitvoerende hoofde fokus op die opbou van 'n persoonlike netto waarde, en verdien enorme vergoeding, ongeag die prestasie van die onderneming. Geld word bestee aan opgeblase salarisse, terugkoop van aandele en die bestuur van korttermynverdienste om bonusse te maksimeer. Te dikwels veroorsaak onmiddellike kostebesparings, soos uitkontraktering, slegte langtermynbesluite.

Uitvoerende hoofde is diegene wat bepaal hoe ons kollektiewe nasionale hulpbronne belê word. Die private ekonomie, wat hulle beheer, is aansienlik groter as enige besteding deur die regering. William Lazonick, professor in Harvard, gee inligting oor hoe tussen 2003 en 2012 uitvoerende hoofde 54% van alle verdienste in aandele -terugkope teruggee (om aandelepryse op kort termyn te verhoog) en nog 37% aan dividende uitdeel. Beleggers het moontlik gewen, maar dit is moeilik om werk te skep (en vir 'n land om voorspoedig te wees) as slegs 9% van alle verdienste vir 'n dekade in die bou van nuwe besighede gaan!

Daar is wonderlike uitvoerende hoofde daar buite. Steve Jobs en sy plaasvervanger Tim Cook het die inkomste en indiensneming dramaties by Apple verhoog. Jeff Bezos het van Amazon 'n benydenswaardige groeimasjien gemaak wat inkomste en werkgeleenthede oplewer. Hierdie leiers fokus daarop om te doen wat nodig is om hul ondernemings te laat groei, en gevolglik die werk in Amerika.

Dit is net jammer dat die vyf genote wat hierbo geprofileer is, meer gedoen het om waarde te vernietig as om dit te skep.

Maak kontak met my op LinkedIn, Facebook en Twitter


FCPA 2015 jaar in hersiening

In 2015, die jaar nadat die Departement van Justisie ("DOJ") verskeie langtermyn- en groot-dollar-ondersoeke na buitelandse korrupte praktyke ("FCPA") opgelos het, was die belangrikste FCPA-verhaal die skerp afname in sowel die getal as die grootte van die DOJ se korporatiewe FCPA -besluite. Die DOJ het FCPA -sake met slegs twee maatskappye besleg en in 2015 $ 24,2 miljoen ingesamel, syfers wat gelyk is aan slegs 'n fraksie van die tien korporatiewe handhawingsaksies en meer as $ 1,25 miljard wat in 2014 ingesamel is. gevalle. Die DOJ skryf hierdie daling toe aan minder self-openbaarmakings en sy fokus op die voortsetting van meer ingewikkelde omkopingsgevalle met 'n groter impak. Teen hierdie verlangsaming in die handhawing van FCPA het die DOJ belê in die toekoms van sy handhawingsregime deur die aantal agentskappe van die Federale Buro vir Ondersoek ("FBI") te verdriedubbel wat toegewy is aan die ondersoek na buitelandse omkopery, die aanstelling van 'n toegewyde nakomingsdeskundige en aankondiging van planne om te verdubbel die aantal aanklaers wat toegewy is aan FCPA -vervolgings.

Ter vergelyking, die Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") het 'n meer tipiese jaar gehad met betrekking tot FCPA -handhawingstatistieke. Dit het tien relatiewe lae-dollar korporatiewe FCPA-handhawingsaksies opgelos-met 'n skikkingsbereik van $ 75,000 tot $ 25 miljoen-en twee handhawingsaksies teen individue opgelos. Die SEC se korporatiewe handhawingsaktiwiteit het sy meer uitgebreide siening getoon van die tipe gedrag wat 'n burgerlike FCPA -oortreding uitmaak. Een van die SEC se besluite het byvoorbeeld bewerings behels dat 'n internskapprogram vir familielede van buitelandse regeringsamptenare onder die FCPA 'iets van waarde' was. Ander noemenswaardige SEC -nedersettings het behels dat hulle betalings en voordele sou gee aan Chinese gesondheidsorgverskaffers wat volgens die SEC 'buitelandse amptenare' onder die FCPA was en na bewering buitensporige geskenke, reise en vermaak aan buitelandse regeringsamptenare verskaf het.

In die laaste deel van 2015 het die DOJ baie publisiteit gekry toe hy sy belofte om individue te vervolg herbevestig in 'n memorandum van 9 September, geskryf deur die adjunk -prokureur -generaal van die DOJ, Sally Yates (die "Yates Memo"). In ooreenstemming met hierdie openbare verklarings, het die DOJ in 2015 skuldige pleidooie deur individue in verband met elk van sy twee korporatiewe handhawingsaksies van die FCPA aangekondig en aansienlike gevangenisstraf opgelê vir verskeie voormalige bestuurders wat skuld beken het. Die DOJ het egter sy reeks FCPA-verhoorstryde voortgesit toe sy opspraakwekkende verhoor teen Joseph Sigelman, voormalige uitvoerende hoof van PetroTiger, skielik geëindig het met 'n pleitooreenkoms vir verhoor nadat die stergetuie van die DOJ erken het dat hy op die staanplek gelê het.

Die DOJ en SEC het ook gepoog om meer lig te werp op die moontlike voordele van self-bekendmaking en samewerking in korporatiewe FCPA-sake. Die DOJ het spesifiek die impak van self-openbaarmaking en samewerking op die heffing van besluite en boeteberekeninge voorgehou, terwyl die SEC verduidelik het dat om in aanmerking te kom vir 'n nie-vervolgingsooreenkoms ("NVG") of 'n uitgestelde vervolgingsooreenkoms ("DPA"), 'n die onderneming moet self bekend maak en saamwerk. Gegewe spesifieke inligting oor moontlike korrupsie, kan die besluit om self bekend te maak en saam te werk in 'n DOJ- of SEC-ondersoek ingewikkeld wees. Die openbare verklarings van die DOJ en SEC blyk te reageer op vrae oor hoe self-openbaarmaking en samewerking 'n uitwerking op besluite en boetes oor saakoplossing het. Dit moet egter nog gesien word of en hoe hierdie stellings deur die aanklaers toegepas sal word.

Laastens, een van die belangrikste verhale oor korrupsie van 2015, is die opkoms van toenemend aggressiewe regerings teen korrupsie buite die Verenigde State. Lande soos China, Mexiko en Suid-Korea het in 2015 nuwe hervormings teen korrupsie aangeneem, en verskeie ander lande, soos die VK, Brasilië en China, het die intensiteit van hul handhawing teen korrupsie verhoog. Intussen werk die DOJ en die SEC steeds saam met hul teenkorrupsie-eweknieë regoor die wêreld, en meer maatskappye staar multi-soewereine ondersoeke in verband met dieselfde beweerde optrede.

Opsomming van die FCPA -handhawingsaktiwiteit in 2015

In 2015 het die DOJ en SEC 'n totaal van 21 handhawingsaksies teen maatskappye en individue ingedien, wat vyf minder was as die 26 wat in 2014 aangekondig is. [1] Die omvang en omvang van die monetêre besluite in 2015 het aansienlik afgeneem vanaf 2014. Die bedrag van boetes en ontheffings vir alle FCPA-handhawingsaksies in 2015 was $ 140 miljoen, wat minder is as 'n tiende van die bedrag wat die DOJ en SEC in 2014 ingevorder het, 'n byna rekordjaar van $ 1,57 miljard, en minder as 'n vyfde van die $ 720 miljoen wat in 2013 ingesamel is. [2] Die daling in 2015 word grootliks toegeskryf aan die afwesigheid van skikkings van meer as $ 25 miljoen. die resolusie van vier nedersettings bo $ 100 miljoen. [3]

Grafiek 1: Aantal handhawingsaksies van DOJ en SEC FCPA, 2006–2015

Die handhawing van DOJ -handhawingsaktiwiteit is aansienlik afgeneem in 2015. Die DOJ het 10 FCPA -handhawingsaksies teen maatskappye en individue in 2015 gebring, 'n daling van 41 persent van die 17 handhawingsaksies in 2014. [4] Boonop het die DOJ vir die eerste keer sedert 2004 slegs twee korporatiewe FCPA -sake opgelos, wat 'n 80 persent afname van die tien korporatiewe besluite in 2014. [5] Die DOJ het in 2015 $ 24,2 miljoen aan FCPA -boetes ingevorder, 'n klein fraksie van die meer as $ 1,25 miljard wat dit in 2014 ingesamel het. [6]

In 2015 het die DOJ twee jare lange korporatiewe ondersoeke afgehandel wat betrekking het op gedrag wat in beide gevalle minstens vyf jaar oud was. Eerstens het die DOJ 'n NVG aangegaan met IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. om 'n ondersoek na 'n beweerde sameswering tussen 2004 en 2008 op te los om Koeweitse amptenare om te koop om 'n kontrak vir tegnologiedienste ter waarde van $ 4 miljoen te bekom. [7] IAP Worldwide het ingestem om 'n boete van $ 7,1 miljoen te betaal en was nie verplig om 'n monitor te behou nie. [8] Die DOJ noem IAP se samewerking as 'n faktor wat tot die NVG gelei het. [9] Tweedens het die DOJ 'n DPA met Louis Berger International ("LBI") aangegaan waarin die maatskappy erken dat tussen 1998 en 2010 verskeie van sy amptenare in Asië amptenare in Koeweit, Indië en Indonesië omgekoop het om kontrakte te wen. [10] LBI het 'n boete van $ 17,1 miljoen betaal en ingestem tot 'n monitering van drie jaar om die ondersoek van die DOJ op te los. [11] By die instemming met die DPA het die DOJ die self-openbaarmaking, samewerking, herstel en verbeterings van sy nakomingsprogram en interne beheermaatreëls oorweeg. [12]

In Oktober het die DOJ openbare verklarings afgelê om die afname in FCPA -sake te verduidelik. 'N Woordvoerder van die DOJ het gesê dat die agentskap se laer korporatiewe handhawingsaktiwiteite toegeskryf kan word aan die verlangsaming in self-aangemelde' kleiner sake 'en die fokus van die DOJ op handhawingsaksies van hoë waarde. [13] Spesifiek, het die woordvoerder gesê dat die DOJ ''n paar jaar gelede meer sake hanteer het wat gebaseer is op selfrapportering deur maatskappye, en as gevolg hiervan het ons meer besluite gesien, maar kleiner sake.' [14] Soos die DOJ-woordvoerder verduidelik die DOJ pas egter sy fokus nou aan by "groter gevalle met groter impak, insluitend sake teen strafbare individue, in die VSA en in die buiteland, [wat] langer neem om ondersoek in te stel en aansienlike hulpbronne op te neem," wat gelei het tot die verlangsaming in handhawingsaktiwiteite in 2015. [15] Die DOJ het gesê dat hierdie gevalle 'jare neem om te ondersoek', wat statistieke van jaar tot jaar kan beïnvloed. [16]

Die FCPA -handhawingstatistieke van die SEC bly konsekwent. Die SEC het in 2015 elf FCPA -handhawingsaksies ingestel, teenoor die nege aksies in 2014. [17] Die SEC het spesifiek nege korporatiewe handhawingsaksies met relatief lae dollar opgelos-met skikkings wat wissel van $ 75,000 tot $ 25 miljoen en 'n gemiddelde skikkingswaarde van $ 12,6 miljoen-en 2 individuele aksies. Hierdie resultate stem ooreen met 2014, toe die SEC sewe korporatiewe handhawingsaksies en twee individuele aksies opgelos het. In 2015 het die SEC 'n totaal van $ 118 miljoen in die ontheffing, vooroordeelbelange en boetes ingesamel, net meer as 'n derde van die $ 320 miljoen wat dit in 2014 ingesamel het. [18] Verskeie noemenswaardige SEC -handhawingsaksies word in die volgende afdeling bespreek.

Grafiek 2: DOJ en SEC FCPA Korporatiewe Handhawingsaksies, 2015

DOJ en SEC het nege individuele handhawingsaksies aangekondig. In 2015 het die DOJ en SEC ook hul beloftes opgevolg om individue in FCPA -ondersoeke na te jaag. Die DOJ het aanklagte teen sewe individue aangekondig, waarvan ses skuldigbevindings aangevoer het en die SEC twee individue aangekla van siviele FCPA -oortredings. [19]

Grafiek 3: DOJ en SEC FCPA individuele handhawingsaksies, aangekondig in 2015

Bykomende FCPA -hulpbronne aan DOJ. Ondanks die afname in die handhawingsaksies van die FCPA, het die DOJ drie groot inisiatiewe aangekondig om die handhawing van FCPA te bevorder, wat waarskynlik in die toekoms tot verhoogde FCPA -handhawingsaktiwiteite sal lei.

  • In Maart het die FBI, in samewerking met die DOJ, drie toegewyde internasionale korrupsiegroepe gestig wat toegewy is aan ondersoeke na buitelandse omkopery. [20] Hierdie groepe is gevestig in New York, Los Angeles en Washington, DC [21] Hierdie stap het die aantal agente wat vir ondersoeke na buitelandse omkopery toegewys is, verdriedubbel van tien tot 30. [22]
  • In Julie het die DOJ die aanstelling van 'n nuwe "nakomingsadviseur" aangekondig om die DOJ te adviseer oor aangeleenthede wat relevant is vir die vervolging van sake -entiteite, insluitend "die bestaan ​​en doeltreffendheid van enige nakomingsprogram", en om die DOJ te help om te besluit of vervolg. [23] In November het die DOJ aangekondig dat hy Hui Chen gehuur het om hierdie pos te vul. [24] Chen was voorheen die Global Head for Anti-Bribery and Corruption by Standard Chartered Bank, beklee verskeie interne en nakomingsrolle by Microsoft Corporation en dien as aanklaer by die DOJ. [25]
  • Uiteindelik, in November, kondig die DOJ 'n plan aan om die aantal aanklaers in sy FCPA -eenheid te verdubbel van tien na 20. [26]

Alhoewel die bykomende hulpbronne van die DOJ waarskynlik sal lei tot 'n toename in die handhawing van die FCPA, is dit egter onduidelik hoe vinnig dit sal gebeur, eers later vanjaar of 2017.

Merkwaardige SEC korporatiewe handhawingsaksies

In 2015 het die SEC se korporatiewe handhawingsaksies van die SEC gefokus op oortredings van die FCPA se vereiste dat uitreikers boeke en rekords byhou wat transaksies en verkoop van bates akkuraat weerspieël, en interne beheermaatreëls voldoende handhaaf om redelike versekering te bied dat transaksies behoorlik gemagtig, geregistreer en verantwoord word vir. Al nege die SEC FCPA-aksies teen maatskappye beweer onvoldoende interne beheermaatreëls en agt van die nege beweerde oortredings van boeke en rekords. Om 'n interne kontrole of boeke-en-rekords-aksie uit te voer, hoef die SEC nie 'n oortreding van die bepalings teen omkopery van die FCPA te beweer nie. Inderdaad, die SEC beskuldig maatskappye dikwels boeke-en-rekords en oortredings van interne kontroles in die afwesigheid van aanklagte teen omkopery. Verlede jaar beweer die SEC in slegs drie van die nege handhawingsaksies oortredings teen omkopery.

Hoogtepunte van vyf van die SEC se handhawingsaksies - met skikkings wat wissel van $ 9,5 miljoen tot $ 25 miljoen - word hieronder bespreek. Hierdie handhawingsaksies demonstreer die wye toepaslikheid van die FCPA se interne beheermaatreëls en boeke-en-rekordsbepalings.

Uitgebreide interpretasie van die FCPA se beperking op die verskaffing van 'iets van waarde' aan buitelandse amptenare. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. ("BNY Mellon") het bewerings besleg dat dit internskappe verskaf aan ongekwalifiseerde familielede van buitelandse regeringsamptenare. Die SEC het die bepalings van interne beheer van die FCPA toegepas op BNY Mellon se werwingspraktyke vir mensehulpbronne. Dit beskou internskappe vir die familielede van twee regeringsamptenare, in een geval onbetaald, as iets van waarde aan 'n staatsamptenaar om sake te bekom of te behou. [27] Sonder om die aanklagte te erken of te ontken, het BNY Mellon ingestem om $ 14,8 miljoen te betaal, bestaande uit $ 8,3 miljoen aan ontslag, $ 1,5 miljoen aan rente en $ 5 miljoen boete. [28] Die skikking van BNY Mellon was die eerste in sy soort in talle opsigte, dit was die eerste handhawingsaksie met betrekking tot internskappe en die eerste skikking in verband met die SEC se sweep van soewereine welvaartsfondse.

Die SEC het 'n uitgebreide beskouing van die FCPA se verbod om 'iets van waarde' aan 'n buitelandse amptenaar te verskaf om sake te bekom of te behou, en beweer dat die gee van internskappe aan ongekwalifiseerde familielede van buitelandse regeringsamptenare iets van waarde vir die amptenare is. [29] In die aankondiging van die skikking het die hoof van die SEC se Afdwingingsafdeling gewaarsku dat "kontantbetalings, geskenke, internskappe of enigiets anders wat gebruik word in korrupte pogings om sake te wen, maatskappye kan blootstel aan 'n SEC -handhawingsaksie." [30] In die lig van BNY Mellon , moet maatskappye daarvan bewus wees dat selfs items wat geen direkte geldwaarde het nie - soos 'n internskap wat aan 'n familielid van 'n buitelandse staatsamptenaar toegeken is - steeds deur die SEC of DOJ as 'waardevol' beskou kan word. As gevolg hiervan, kan sulke items steeds aanspreeklikheid ingevolge die FCPA aanleiding gee aan 'n buitelandse amptenaar (direk of indirek deur 'n familielid). As deel van sy samewerking en regstellende pogings het BNY Mellon sy program vir nakoming van korrupsie uitgebrei om spesifiek die aanstelling van familielede van regeringsamptenare aan te spreek. [31]

Betalings en voordele vir Chinese gesondheidsorgverskaffers wat ondersoek word. Die skikkings van die SEC met Mead Johnson Nutrition ("Mead Johnson") en Bristol-Meyers Squibb ("BMS") beklemtoon die beduidende risiko wat verband hou met sake in die gesondheidsorgbedryf in China, waar baie gesondheidsorgverskaffers werknemers van staatsbesit is hospitale en kan onder die FCPA as 'buitelandse amptenare' kwalifiseer.

Eerstens, in Julie 2015, het Mead Johnson 'n SEC-ondersoek na beweerde betalings deur derde partye aan gesondheidswerkers in staatsbeheerde hospitale in China opgelos. [32] Die SEC beweer dat Mead Johnson se Chinese filiaal onbehoorlike betalings aan derdeparty-verskaffers gemaak het, wat dan na bewering kontant en ander aansporings aan gesondheidswerkers in Chinese staatsbeheerde hospitale betaal het om hulle aan te moedig om Mead Johnson se babamengsel aan te beveel vir nuwe en verwagtende moeders. [33] Die dokters in die staatshospitaal was volgens die SEC 'buitelandse amptenare' in die betekenis van die FCPA. [34] Die SEC het uiteindelik beweer dat die onderneming se versuim om die transaksies en sy "laks interne beheermaatreëls" akkuraat aan te teken, sy filiaal in staat gestel het om fondse te misbruik in stryd met die FCPA. [35]

Mead Johnson het met die SEC afgereken vir $ 12 miljoen - $ 7,77 miljoen as ontslag, $ 1,26 miljoen in vooroordeelbelang en 'n boete van $ 3 miljoen. [36] Mead Johnson het nie die SEC se bewerings erken of ontken nie. [37] By die oplossing van die SEC se ondersoek het Mead Johnson regstellende maatreëls getref wat insluit die ontslag van werknemers (spesifiek senior personeel), die opdatering van sy interne beheermaatreëls en die opstel van China-spesifieke nakomingsbeleid. [38] Die bevel van die SEC het ook gefokus op die uitgebreide samewerking van Mead Johnson, insluitend vrywillige bekendmaking van die bevindinge van sy interne ondersoek. [39]

Tweedens, in Oktober 2015, het BMS ingestem om die bewerings van die SEC te skik dat dit kontant en ander voordele aan plaaslike gesondheidsorgverskaffers in Chinese staatsbeheerde en staatsbeheerde hospitale bied in ruil vir die verkoop van voorskrifmedisyne. [40] Die SEC beweer dat tussen 2009 en 2014 verkoopsverteenwoordigers van BMS se meerderheidsbesit in China, BMS China, kontant, geskenke, etes, reis, vermaak en konferensieborgskappe aan gesondheidsorgverskaffers verskaf het. [41] Die SEC beweer ook dat BMS China hierdie uitgawes verkeerdelik as wettige besigheidsuitgawes opgeteken het, nie reageer het op rooi vlae wat omkoopgeld aandui nie, nie die eise van beëindigde werknemers ondersoek het nie, en dat dit te traag was in die regstellende reaksie. [42]

Sonder om die bewerings te erken of te ontken, het BMS die SEC-bewerings opgelos dat dit die interne beheermaatreëls en rekordhoudingbepalings van die FCPA oortree het deur in te stem tot 'n selfmonitoring van twee jaar en 'n boete van $ 14 miljoen te betaal. [43] Net soos Mead Johnson, beklemtoon die BMS -skikking die risiko om sake te doen in die gesondheidsorgsektor in China as gevolg van uitgebreide staatsbetrokkenheid in die bedryf en die uitgebreide siening van die SEC oor wie kwalifiseer as 'n buitelandse regeringsamptenaar. [44]

Fokus op die verskaffing van "geskenke, reise en vermaak" aan regeringsamptenare. Die handhawingsaksies van die SEC teen BMS en BHP Billiton het die SEC beklemtoon dat beweerde onwettige geskenke, reise en vermaak aan buitelandse regeringsamptenare toegepas word. In Mei 2015 beweer die SEC dat BHP Billiton nie voldoende interne beheer oor sy gasvryheidsprogram vir die Olimpiese Spele het nie. [45] Selfs sonder bewering van omkopery, het BHP Billiton se beweerde versuim om beleid en prosedures in te stel wat bedoel is om korrupsierisiko voldoende te beskerm, gelei tot 'n skikking van $ 25 miljoen, wat dit die grootste FCPA -skikking van 2015 maak. [46] Die SEC beweer dat BHP Billiton 176 buitelandse amptenare, meestal uit Afrika en Asië, genooi het om die Olimpiese Spele in Beijing in 2008 by te woon en uiteindelik die bywoning van 60 buitelandse amptenare en 24 van hul eggenote geborg het. [47] Die onderneming het tussen $ 720,000 en $ 960,000 in totaal betaal vir die gasvryheidspakkette. [48] BHP Billiton het nie die bewerings van die SEC erken of ontken nie.

In die bevel van die SEC word beweer dat BHP Billiton versuim het om interne beheermaatreëls op te stel en in stand te hou en versuim het om boeke en rekords wat verband hou met die gasvryheidsprogram van die Olimpiese Spele akkuraat by te hou. Die SEC het nie beweer dat BHP Billiton spesifieke sake uit die verskaffing van die gasvryheidspakkette verkry het nie, en het nie beweer dat daar 'n quid pro quo. Die SEC se gebruik van die FCPA se boeke en rekords en bepalings vir interne beheermaatreëls - sonder om te beweer dat omkopery plaasgevind het - om die grootste straf van die agentskap van 2015 op te lê, beklemtoon die SEC se breë lees van die FCPA se bepalings oor rekordhouding en interne beheermaatreëls.

Yates Memorandum Hernuwe klem op die vervolging van individue

In 2015 het amptenare van die DOJ verskeie openbare verklarings afgelewer, waarin die fokus van die DOJ op individuele vervolging in verband met korporatiewe oortreding beklemtoon word. Hierdie strategie is beklemtoon in die Yates -memorandum, waarin die DOJ se handhawingsbeleid en -praktyke uiteengesit is, en herhaal die fokus van die DOJ op die vervolging van individue wat by korporatiewe oortredings betrokke is. [49] Die klem van die DOJ op die vervolging van individue is bedoel om die beperkte aantal individuele handhawingsaksies die afgelope jaar aan te spreek in vergelyking met die aantal korporatiewe handhawingsaksies. Op die gebied van handhawing van korrupsie, van die 84 DOJ FCPA-handhawingsaksies teen maatskappye sedert 2004, het slegs 20 (24 persent) van die optrede tot klagte teen individue gelei. [50]

Alhoewel sommige van die beleid en praktyke van die Yates -memorandum waarskynlik weinig daartoe sal lei om die DOJ se huidige praktyk en die gedrag van samewerkende ondernemings wat ondersoek word, te verander, sal ander uitsprake gevolge hê vir FCPA -ondersoeke, soos hieronder bespreek.

Regstellende vereiste om alle relevante feite rakende individue vir korporatiewe samewerkingskrediet te verskaf. Die Yates -memorandum dui aan dat 'n voorvereiste vir 'krediet' vir korporatiewe samewerking is dat 'n korporasie alle relevante feite moet openbaar 'rakende die individue wat verantwoordelik is vir die wangedrag.' [51] In 'n toespraak wat sy op 10 September gelewer het, het die adjunk -prokureur -generaal verduidelik hierdie vereiste toe sy verklaar dat 'n korporasie 'n vervolgbare saak teen individue moet indien enige samewerkingskrediet van die DOJ, wat daarop dui dat samewerkingskrediet nou 'n alles-of-niks-voorstel is [52]:

[I] As 'n onderneming krediet wil hê vir samewerking, krediet hoegenaamd, moet dit alle individue identifiseer wat by die oortreding betrokke is, ongeag hul posisie, status of senioriteit in die onderneming en alle relevante feite oor hul wangedrag verskaf. Dit is alles of niks. Nie meer kies en kies wat geopenbaar word nie. Nie meer gedeeltelike krediet vir samewerking wat nie inligting oor individue bevat nie. [53]

Hoewel krediet vir korporatiewe samewerking nie afhanklik is van die feit of enige personeellidpersoneel uiteindelik vervolg word nie, kan maatskappye wat samewerkingskrediet soek, nie meer ''n ondersoek [beëindig] met 'n gevolgtrekking van korporatiewe aanspreeklikheid nie, maar dit sal nie langer die identifisering van diegene wat die onderliggende gedrag gepleeg het, stop nie. 54] Volgens die DOJ sal 'n uitsondering slegs gemaak word indien "'n onderneming werklik nie in staat is om die skuldige individue te identifiseer nie ... [55]

In praktiese terme mag die verpligting om alle relevante feite met betrekking tot strafbare individue oor te dra, nie 'n wesenlike verandering vir samewerkende ondernemings beteken nie. 'N Maatskappy wat aan 'n ondersoek saamwerk, het reeds min aansporing om relevante, nie-bevoorregte feite te weerhou-insluitend feite wat individue moontlik by kriminele aktiwiteite kan impliseer. Die toenemende fokus op individuele vervolgings en die bekendmaking van bewyse om ondersoeke na individue te ondersteun, kan egter 'n koue uitwerking hê op werknemers met kennis van of betrokkenheid by die onderliggende wangedrag. Die verminderde aansporing van werknemers om met interne ondersoeke saam te werk - uit vrees vir hul eie vervolging - kan die moeilikheid om interne ondersoeke na moontlike FCPA -oortredings te doen, verder toeneem.

Met die klem op individuele vervolgings, stel die Yates -memorandum ook die vraag of dit vir ondernemings moeiliker sal wees om samewerkingskrediet te ontvang. 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 moet 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]


Klassifikasie

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.

Vrywaring: 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. Byvoorbeeld:

    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.


Homepage

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.


Kyk die video: Donderdag, 9 September 2021. Links of Regs. Jou persepsie