Creating Efficiencies In Your Anti-Corruption Compliance Program – Forbes

Compliance convergence originates in the idea that many, if not all, compliance programs involve the collection and processing of information.  What makes compliance convergence not only possible but almost inevitable is that many different functions within an overall compliance program look for the same information.  Yet in many—if not most—organizations, information is not shared between compliance functions, tools that analyze information in one context are not utilized in others, resources dedicated to one area don’t cross-pollinate or otherwise make their information, decisions, or even their experience available for other areas.

Let’s spend a moment on a compliance officer’s most frequent effort, the root cause analysis.  Compliance until fairly recently has been immune from the relentless drive toward efficiency that has engulfed the business world.  In a lot of companies, there was fear that “efficiency” meant “budget cutting,” and that regulators would not look kindly on budget cutting in compliance.  But efficiency means more than controlling spend on a Salary and Benefits budget line.  And because compliance is notably bereft of businesspeople, there isn’t the natural drive to get the most out of each dollar.  In a lot of cases, especially in a crisis, there’s a spare-no-expense mentality that morphs into wildly useless expenditures on accounting firms and outside counsel, and on implementing their sometimes-overly-cautious recommendations.  Even recently, efforts to control costs within compliance programs have revolved around staff cuts or reassignments, rather than engaging in a true effort to identify and implement efficiencies.

The other root cause of compliance inefficiency—and one more relevant to the concept of convergence—is the subspecialization that regulations require.  Companies handle life risk by risk.  Banks have anti-money laundering risk, sanctions risk, FCPA/anti-corruption risk, operational risk, plus others.  They hire experts in each field to develop programs to assess and mitigate those risks.  Those experts develop their programs in somewhat of a vacuum.  They buy technology they “need,” they write up resource requirements, they write policies, develop procedures, and create training.  There is no overarching analysis, however, that would identify potential efficiencies among the various risks.

via Creating Efficiencies In Your Anti-Corruption Compliance Program – Forbes.

Who Has to Pay for E-Discovery? | Law.com

The prevalence and cost of electronic discovery have grown substantially within the past 10 years. Many parties, particularly corporate defendants, have become increasingly concerned and frustrated after having to pay for e-discovery searches to respond to requests that seem overly broad or to be pure fishing expeditions.

While it may not always be possible to avoid the expense of e-discovery, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for shifting the cost of production to the requesting party under certain circumstances.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B) states:

A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

The advisory committee notes from the 2006 amendments provide factors to guide the good-cause analysis: 1. the specificity of the request; 2. the quantity of available information from other sources that may be easily accessible; 3. the failure to produce once easily accessible information that is no longer easily accessible; 4. the likelihood of locating relevant information that cannot be found on easily accessible sources; 5. the prediction that further information will be relevant and important; 6. the importance of issues at stake in the litigation; and 7. the parties’ individual resources.

Therefore, under the federal rules, the party seeking discovery first must show that good cause exists for that discovery if the responding party objects on the grounds that the information sought is not reasonably accessible.

Once the requester shows good cause, the court nevertheless may limit the discovery or require the requesting party to pay for the retrieval of the electronically stored information by considering the following factors and specifying “conditions for discovery.” According to the advisory committee notes:

via Who Has to Pay for E-Discovery?.

TalkingPoint: Addressing FCPA issues in emerging market deals

W: Can you explain why Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) issues might be a cause for concern when acquiring emerging market companies? Is corruption and bribery still a pervasive problem in the BRIC countries?

Walker: Different corporate and compliance cultures, decentralised and inconsistent contracting procedures, and antiquated or opaque accounting practices are just some of the reasons that US companies wishing to acquire an emerging market company should be concerned about FCPA issues. BRIC countries are of particular interest because of the notable growth in their economies, although much of this growth has been in the industries where fraud and bribery can be found. Indeed, Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index suggests that corruption and bribery still are perceived to be pervasive problems, revealing that out of 178 countries surveyed, with 178 being the country ranked most corrupt, Brazil ranked 69th, Russia 154th, India 87th, and China 78th.

DiBianco: Based on various factors, emerging markets continue to have an elevated perceived risk of corruption. Accordingly, enhanced diligence on corruption risks is frequently appropriate when considering a transaction in such markets. Regulators in the US and Europe have increased levels of sophistication regarding the nature of perceived risks in different geographies. For example, recent settlements identify risks in Brazil that are focused on customs clearance and duties. In India and China, past investigations have focused on payments to secure licences and permits or to ensure contract renewals with government entities. In Russia, investigations and settlements have examined payments to intermediary entities as a conduit to government officials or principals in state owned enterprises.

Pomerantz: In many emerging markets, including the BRIC countries, there is a confluence of circumstances which makes corruption risk greater. Industries, such as healthcare, oil & gas, and textiles, among others, which are privately owned in the United States and in Western Europe, are owned or controlled by the state. In addition, many of the emerging market countries have a history of controlling governments, with little transparency, which fostered a culture of corruption. Finally, the fault in this does not all lay on the side of the emerging market. There is a great deal of money to be made in emerging market economies and, as a result, companies seeking to do business with the government have a strong motivation to pay bribes. With regard to BRIC countries, bribery is clearly a problem. One need only look at enforcement actions over the past year to ascertain that corruption is alive and well in each of the BRIC countries.

FW: To your knowledge, has there been a rise in aborted or renegotiated deals due to FCPA problems?

Pomerantz: FCPA risk is increasingly a focus of the pre-deal due diligence process, as it should be. There is no doubt that deals have been both terminated or, more often, renegotiated as a result of an FCPA issue discovered during this process. Our specific experience is more in line with renegotiated deals and deferrals of transactions than outright termination.

Walker: Approximately 63 percent of the companies surveyed in the recent Deloitte LLP ‘Look Before You Leap’ survey identified corruption issues as the cause for renegotiating or aborting merger deals in the past three years. These survey results are consistent with the daunting financial penalties incurred recently by companies whose subsidiaries engaged in corrupt practices, including the $5m in civil and criminal fines Tyson Foods agreed to pay this February because of payments by a Mexican subsidiary to government officials, and the combined $137m in fines and disgorgement Alcatel-Lucent S.A. agreed to pay in December 2010 relating to gifts and payments paid by subsidiaries to foreign officials in several countries. Lack of knowledge that the acquired company’s subsidiaries paid bribes to conduct business will not shield the acquirer from successor liability, and therefore renegotiating or aborting a deal upon the discovery of FCPA problems often is warranted.

via TalkingPoint: Addressing FCPA issues in emerging market deals.

Firefox Feeling Sluggish? Disable Your Add-Ons – NYTimes.com

Firefox 4 included an update to its JavaScript engine, which made for some serious performance gains. Now Mozilla is going after another cause of sluggishness: slow start-up times caused by add-ons. If your install of Firefox feels slow to start up, you may want to try disabling some add-ons. According to Mozilla, on average, each add-on a user has installed adds 10 percent to Firefox’s start-up time. But that’s only for the average extension; some add-ons have a much worse start-up time impact than others.

via Firefox Feeling Sluggish? Disable Your Add-Ons – NYTimes.com.

Connecticut Law Tribune: E-Discovery: Wisdom Or Worry: State Courts Lack E-Discovery Rules

Unlike most other states, Connecticut does not have e-discovery rules similar to the federal rule amendments adopted in 2006. Is this a cause for concern? No. The costs of e-discovery are simply too high to justify anything but a careful and thoughtful approach to adopting rules that potentially could change the playing field for parties and lawyers alike.

The risks of adopting e-discovery rules without a thorough analysis are obvious: e-discovery expenses should not be the gatekeeper that determines which litigants have a day in court. For example, certain parties and law firms may be deterred from bringing contingency fee cases involving terabytes of electronically stored information (ESI) because they lack the financial resources to bear the expense of collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing ESI in the absence of cost-shifting.

Even without specific e-discovery rules, Connecticut state courts have been applying existing statutes, rules, and causes of action to address e-discovery issues. Yet, the relatively low number of cases involving e-discovery issues, which are published or available on electronic databases, raises significant questions.

via Connecticut Law Tribune: E-Discovery: Wisdom Or Worry: State Courts Lack E-Discovery Rules.

Sync Your Often Accessed Business Files in the Cloud With ShareFile

Workflow and multiple users are the cause of much misery for those trying to keep files up to date in the cloud, but ShareFile offers a way for SMBs to handle this tricky juggling act.

Differentiating in the Cloud File World

Not all cloud-based file sharing services are created equal, and making a noise about its Enterprise 2.0 business-friendliness is ShareFile, with its latest product, Sync. Aimed at business users, it offers continuous synchronization for files and folders. It offers both one- and two-way syncing to ensure data validity and is part of the SyncFile’s growing platform.

In addition to its ability to sync to mobiles and tablets, ShareFile also lets user’s work with their existing folder structure, rather then demanding everything goes into one drop folder. The two-way functionality works via an Adobe Air 2.0 app, while Sync itself is part of ShareFile’s Power Tools suite that comes with desktop and mobile apps, Outlook plug-ins and other goodies.

via Sync Your Often Accessed Business Files in the Cloud With ShareFile.

Insurers Sue Toyota Over Acceleration Claims Costs – WSJ.com

Seven insurance companies have filed lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp. seeking a minimum of $230,000 to cover the cost of claims paid for accidents related to the unintended acceleration problems identified in Toyota vehicles in the past several years

The insurers filed separate but identical complaints Dec. 30 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming that defects in Toyota vehicles were the cause of the crashes. “Certain of Toyota’s cars and trucks have a defect that causes sudden, uncontrolled acceleration to speeds of up to 100 miles per hour or more,” the complaints allege. “This defect is combined with the operator’s inability to stop the vehicle during such an incidence due to defective electronics and the absence of a fail-safe, such as a brake-override system.”

The lawsuits are similar to one filed by Allstate Corp. three months ago in the same court seeking $3 million in damages. The litigants are American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co., Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., National Surety Corp., American Automobile Insurance Co., Ameriprise Insurance Co., Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. and IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co.

These types of claims “are common between insurers and auto makers. However, Toyota believes that any allegation that a vehicle-based defect is the cause of unintended acceleration in this or any other complaint is completely unfounded and has no basis,” said Celeste Migliore, a Toyota spokeswoman.

via Insurers Sue Toyota Over Acceleration Claims Costs – WSJ.com.

Using logs for forensics after a data breach – Computerworld

Despite the best precautions, it is impossible to protect your network against every attack. When the inevitable happens, your log data can be critical for identifying the cause of the breach and collecting evidence for use in the legal system. That is, if your logs were properly configured before the breach happened.

Log files are generated by all data processing equipment every time an activity takes place.  It is an electronic fingerprint with an added element: we know at what time that fingerprint was generated, so we are able to reconstruct what happened and in what order. Analyzing logs is the primary way of doing forensics, and properly managed logs can also be used as evidence in a court of law for prosecution purposes.

Data loss a mystery for many businesses

When you enable logs you can typically specify: 1) the severity level, which essentially specifies how severe the event needs to be to deserve creating a log message and 2) the level of detail captured in the log message, the so-called verbose level.

via Using logs for forensics after a data breach – Computerworld.

Difficulties producing ‘digital evidence’ cause lawyers to lose cases – SC Magazine UK

The challenge of processing digital information has caused lawyers to lose a case or to be fined or sanctioned in the last two years.

A survey of 5,000 lawyers across EMEA by Symantec found that they are struggling to manage the vast amounts of electronically stored information that play a vital role as evidence in legal matters across the EMEA region.

Half of those surveyed (51 per cent) admitted to problems identifying and recovering e-discovery in the last three months. However the poor availability of ‘digital evidence’, which can also hinder the legal process and the power of technology to identify and collect relevant information among millions of electronic files has had a positive impact on many cases across EMEA.

Almost all of the lawyers questioned (98 per cent) said that ‘digital evidence’ identified during e-discovery had been vital to the success of legal matters in which they had been involved in the past two years.

via Difficulties producing ‘digital evidence’ cause lawyers to lose cases – SC Magazine UK.

Border searches of laptops may be conducted off-site for cause, court rules – Computerworld

In recent cases, U.S. courts have supported the government's right to search the contents of computers and other electronic devices carried by travelers arriving at U.S borders.

A federal court in Michigan this week added that if such a search could not be performed at the border, the government has the right to seize and transport a computer to a secondary inspection facility, as long as there’s reasonable suspicion.

The issue of border laptop searches is important for business travelers who arrive at U.S airports carrying computers they use for work. Privacy advocates, security analysts and others have expressed concern that such searches could result in the exposure of sensitive company or customer data. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has previously asserted its right to inspect, copy or download the contents of computers or other electronic devices belonging to travelers at U.S. borders even without cause.

The federal court’s ruling was first reported by the Web site FourthAmendment.com. The ruling was in response to a motion filed by the defendant in a child pornography case, who alleged that U.S. customs officials violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they took away one of his computers at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

via Border searches of laptops may be conducted off-site for cause, court rules – Computerworld.