In addition to the speeches presented at the ABA’s 38th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (2023 Monaco Speech) and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite (Polite Speech); there was the release of the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). Today we review another new addition to the ECCP, that being ‘consequence management’. This certainly includes clawbacks but there is also other language which compliance professionals will need to incorporate into their compliance program beyond clawbacks.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been talking about clawbacks for some time now. However, the revised language of the ECCP puts more rigor around what the DOJ is now mandating. This section begins by noting that financial penalties as well as financial incentives can influence employee behavior and that prosecutors are now required to consider both aspects. It states:

“By way of example, prosecutors may consider whether a company has publicized disciplinary actions internally, where appropriate and possible, which can have valuable deterrent effects. Prosecutors may also consider whether a company is tracking data relating to disciplinary actions to measure effectiveness of the investigation and consequence management functions. This can include monitoring the number of compliance-related allegations that are substantiated, the average (and outlier) times to complete a compliance investigation, and the effectiveness and consistency of disciplinary measures across the levels, geographies, units or departments of an organization…Some companies have also enforced contract provisions that permit the company to recoup previously awarded compensation if the recipient of such compensation is found to have engaged in or to be otherwise responsible for corporate wrongdoing. Finally, prosecutors may consider whether provisions for recoupment or reduction of compensation due to compliance violations or misconduct are maintained and enforced in accordance with company policy and applicable laws…Compensation structures that clearly and effectively impose financial penalties for misconduct can deter risky behavior and foster a culture of compliance.”

Clawbacks

With the Pilot Program and other announcements in the Monaco and Polite speeches, the DOJ has made clear that companies need to seek to recover amounts paid out to executives which were illegally received as corporate compensation. This could include both salary, stock options or similar payments or discretionary bonuses. Regarding your corporate clawback protocol itself, the ECCP poses the following questions:

• What percentage of executive compensation is structured to encourage enduring ethical business objectives?
• Are the terms of bonus and deferred compensation subject to cancellation or recoupment, to the extent available under applicable law, in the event that non-compliant or unethical behavior is exposed before or after the award was issued?
• Does the company have a policy for recouping compensation that has been paid, where there has been misconduct?
• Have there been specific examples of actions taken (e.g., promotions or awards denied, compensation recouped or deferred compensation cancelled) as a result of compliance and ethics considerations?

All of this means every compliance program will need to analyze each of these components as set out. It will also require a review of executive contracts to determine if there are clawback provisions set out in each employment contract. If there are no such provisions, they will need to be inserted. Finally, what “specific examples of actions taken” does a company have to show to the DOJ should they come knocking?

Consequence Management

The DOJ also mandated that compliance programs take a deeper dive into their entire financial incentive program; both incentives and dis-incentives. While not previously discussed in speeches, these new requirements seem to flow from the general statements made by both Monaco and Polite over the past year. In this area, the ECCP mandates the following inquiries:

• How has the company ensured effective consequence management of compliance violations in practice?
• What insights can be taken from the management of a company’s hotline that provide indicia of its compliance culture or its management of hotline reports?
• How do the substantiation rates compare for similar types of reported wrongdoing across the company (i.e. between two or more different states, countries, or departments) or compared to similarly situated companies, if known?
• Has the company undertaken a root cause analysis into areas where certain conduct is comparatively over or under reported?
• What is the average time for completion of investigations into hotline reports and how are investigations that are addressed inconsistently managed by the responsible department?
• What percentage of the compensation awarded to executives who have been found to have engaged in wrongdoing has been subject to cancellation or recoupment for ethical violations?
• Taking into account the relevant laws and local circumstances governing the relevant parts of a compensation scheme, how has the organization sought to enforce breaches of compliance or penalize ethical lapses?
• How much compensation has in fact been impacted (either positively or negatively) on account of compliance-related activities?

Obviously, there is some overlap with the clawback language but there is quite a bit new in these questions. The DOJ ties hotline and speak up reports directly to a company’s culture of compliance. This is almost a direct tie back to the findings of Kyle Welch in his seminal work on a speak up culture. But the DOJ goes on to ask about substantiation rates, closure rates, consistent and fair application of discipline (and rewards when called for) and root cause analysis; which are not simply technical aspects of compliance programs but are concrete steps companies can implement to engender trust with employees that their concerns will be taken seriously and then acted upon when they are raised. Once again, as with clawbacks, these are levels of analysis that many compliance programs have not yet taken but are now required to do so.

Join us tomorrow when we consider messaging apps under the revised ECCP.

[View source.]