Workplace Trust: Integrity, Ethics & Legal Risk...

Operational Risk Management professionals wonder about the "Tone at the Top" and decisions at the latest Board of Directors meetings to ignore or investigate a whistleblowers claims of ethics or governance violations in the workplace.

The financial services companies have for years been the target of scrutiny for claims of fraud, mistreatment of consumers and violations of several U.S. federal regulations many under further examination by the SEC.  As time goes on in the evolution of maleficence you will find examples of wrong doing in other private sector areas, such as the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), Retail and Information Technology (IT).  Think about your own company and ask yourself how you treat and respond to the 800 number Ethics Line and those who staff the Internal Audit, Risk Management or Information Security departments.  Are these enablers or impediments to your future success?  Your answer may be a clue to the issue at hand.

The professionals in the Inspector Generals office, the Operational Risk Management department and the General Counsels office are also there for a good reason.  Think about them as the last "Thin Blue Line" between your company becoming a success or falling into a cultural abyss that will plague the institution for decades.  Steven Pearlstein explains from the Washington Post:

Steven Pearlstein: How could SAIC miss this? By Steven Pearlstein, 

Last week in these pages, The Post ran a profile of John Jumper, the straight arrow former Air Force general who was brought in as chief executive of local contracting giant SAIC in the wake of an embarrassing overbilling scandal involving bribery, kickbacks, foreign shell corporations and a safe deposit box stuffed with $850,000 in cash. 

A year ago company officials were publicly denying that there were any problems at all with its contract to build a new timecard system for New York City, which by then was so late and so over budget that “CityTime” had become a frequent target for the New York tabloids and political embarrassment for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

It was just last June that SAIC executives and directors first informed shareholders that there might be a little $2.5 million overbilling problem with the contract and that federal prosecutors had brought criminal charges against six employees of an SAIC subcontractor. Shareholders had to read deep into Note 9 of that quarterly report to learn that there might be “a reasonable possibility of additional exposure to loss that is not currently estimable” that “could have a material adverse impact” on the company’s finances.

This episode by one DIB contractor, was not the first nor will it be the last.  One has to ask whether the advice these companies are getting from their outside counsel is always the right course of action.  The government and the internal risk management departments are going to be continuously deluged with new whistleblower claims.  Not just because new laws are in place to protect them and to provide them with the incentives to come forward.  It is because good people are sick and tired of having their organizations reputation tarnished and their respective ethical practices being jeopardized by a few bad cowboys or rogue actors.  Yet now, the Retail sector is being taught a serious lesson regarding a potential FCPA violation by Wal-Mart.  David Barstow at the NYT has this to report:

By DAVID BARSTOW 

Published: April 21, 2012  MEXICO CITY — 

In September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country. 

The former executive gave names, dates and bribe amounts. He knew so much, he explained, because for years he had been the lawyer in charge of obtaining construction permits for Wal-Mart de Mexico. 

Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. In a confidential report to his superiors, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former F.B.I. special agent, summed up their initial findings this way: “There is reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated.”

Mitigation of Operational Risks in the workplace, such as fraud and corruption is different than it is outside the enterprise.  The difference is, that corporate executives do not always believe that their own employees would behave this way.  They could be naive to the reasons why fraud finds its way into the psyche of some of the organizations must trusted officers.  Corruption and the signs that an organization has lost its way from a place of cultural integrity and one that condones others to look the other way or for many to help perpetuate schemes of wrong doing, requires a massive organizational transformation.  A transformation that is lead by focused and talented Operational Risk professionals.

But most of all, even if you have these professionals on your team already, there are still some important ingredients to achieving your own "Defensible Standard of Care":

1.  If you think you have funded the risk management department in your enterprise adequately, you haven't.  Do not confuse your outside audit function with your internal risk management function. 

2.  If you don't understand how your 800 number ethics line works and the outsourced organization that runs this, then you need to do so immediately. 

3.  If you have a favorite outside counsel to help you with investigations, it might be time for a check up.  Even more importantly, it might be time to get your outside counsel firms and your outside audit firms invited to a meeting of the minds on corporate integrity. 

4.  If you find any indications that 1 through 3 have been ignored, pushed aside or been giving you a false sense of security, then you might consider making a career change.

Tech Inc., a rapidly growing software company operating in 45 countries, learns that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are investigating payments made by its subsidiaries in Brazil and China for possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Bob, the general counsel for Tech Inc., suspects that the source of the investigation is an employee who anonymously lodged a hotline complaint alleging that the company was 1) paying independent sales agents excessive commissions and 2) providing generous discounts and rebates to some of its channel customers and distributors. The complainant also said he believed the problem extended beyond Brazil and China based on discussions he had with other employees.

RSA Conference: CSO Insomnia Over Insider Threat...

Next week in the U.S. there will be thousands of risk management and security professionals invading the RSA Conference in San Francisco. The myriad of topics, education and case studies are worth examining to see what is on the mind of these thought leaders and practitioners who are also designated speakers. You can even look to the popular press to see what the vibe is on what this years biggest worries will be:

1. Mobile Devices
2. Advanced Persistent Threat
3. Big Data Privacy
4. Hacktavists

However, if you spend some time to drill down on each of these topic areas and really look at the actual presentations of the presenters, some are based upon real cases and research and others are not. The one presentation that caught our eye and continues to be what some savvy CSOs would say keeps them sleeping with one eye open each night, is their insomnia over the "Insider Threat." That person or organized group of unidentified subjects that are there to recruit vulnerable people into initiating or perpetuating crimes against the organization.

Dawn Cappelli runs the Insider Threat Center at the Software Engineering Institute and highlights these areas of concern from their research and analysis of real cases:

The CERT Top 10 List for Winning the Battle Against Insider Threats

Dawn M. Cappelli Director, CERT Insider Threat Center CERT Program, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University

• 10. Learn from past incidents
• 9. Focus on protecting the crown jewels
• 8. Use your current technologies differently
• 7. Mitigate threats from trusted business partners
• 6. Recognize concerning behaviors as a potential indicator
• 5. Educate employees regarding potential recruitment
• 4. Pay close attention at resignation / termination!
• 3. Address employee privacy issues with General Counsel
• 2. Work together across the organization
• 1. Create an insider threat program NOW!

Number Three on the list is certainly on the top third and for good reason. Employees and the policy decisions on what data is owned by the company and owned by the employee is of grave concern these days in the United States. Now after so many years it looks as if this issue is going to get more heated and see the light of day from a congressional point of view. Yet the CSO must feel that the ability for the safeguards necessary to keep the organization safe and secure are not in place yet. Catherine Dunn of ALMs Corporate Counsel sheds more light on this:

According to a new White House report on consumer data privacy protection, trust is worth a lot of money to U.S. businesses—users have to know their data will be protected if the economic engine of digital innovation is to keep roaring. Ergo, the U.S. needs a privacy framework that’s “flexible” enough to accommodate industry innovation, and comprehensive enough that consumers will feel safe—and keep clicking.

But trust between consumers and companies in the U.S. is only part of the equation. There’s another important element, too: how compatible U.S. safeguards are with those of the rest of the world, and particularly Europe. This new proposal arrives a month ahead of a conference on data protection between E.U. and U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., leading to questions about whether Europe and the U.S. are any closer to getting on the same page when it comes to data privacy.

The answer not only depends on who you ask, but also what section of the White House’s report you’re looking at. The white paper lists seven principles and stresses that these principles should form the basis of voluntary codes of conduct adopted by industry. Once adopted, the Federal Trade Commission would have the power to enforce compliance to those codes. The paper also includes a call for Congress to pass legislation based on these principles, and devotes a section to “international interoperability”—which considers how data can be sent across international borders without violating laws on either side of the transaction.

This is where we need to make sure we understand the difference between what privacy issues have to do with a company employee and the privacy associated with just a U.S. consumer, who is not an employee but perhaps a member, client or customer of the organization.

If we go back to the big worries at RSA and combine this with the employees who are operating at the "Speed of Business" in your enterprise, you begin to see the difference. Actually, if you think about it some more, every employee of the organization has a duty to care for the information inside the organization, in order to better protect the assets of the enterprise but simultaneously the assets of the consumer.

The consumer assets are their "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) and this represents in many cases what the organized criminals are after in the first place. This is where the outside recruitment threat starts to have its nexus. However, even the highly trained and state sponsored agents who are inside the enterprise to steal corporate or national security secrets are far and few these days. That may be surprising to some, but if you look at how the exfiltration of data is taking place it's almost all automated. No human intervention is required.

If that is the case, then what is Dawn Cappelli and the Insider Threat Team at CERT so concerned about from their research insights:

Criminal enterprises mask their fraud by involving multiple insiders who often work in different areas of the organization and who know how to bypass critical processes and remain undetected. In several cases, management is involved in the fraud. Those insiders affiliated with organized crime are either selling information to these groups for further exploitation or are directly employed by them. Ties to organized crime appear in only 24 cases in the CERT insider threat database and are characterized by multiple insiders and/or outsiders committing long-term fraud.

All of the insiders involved with organized crime attacked the organization for financial gain. The insiders usually were employed in lower level positions in the organization, were motivated by financial gain, and were recruited by outsiders to commit their crimes. The average damages in these cases exceed $3M, with some cases resulting in $50M in losses.

Now you know why your CSO is headed to the RSA Conference this week and why they are sleeping with one eye open these days.

Irregular Warfare: 21st Century Corporate Battlefield...

The safety and security of your corporate assets is a Board of Directors level issue. The loss events including adversarial litigation for errors, omissions, or just plain ignorance of regulatory compliance are gaining momentum. These Operational Risks associated with human behavior and the daily tasks performed on the job remain a vast vulnerability within the corporate enterprise. Why?

The discipline of effective Operational Risk Management requires a tone from the top that speaks to the core issue:

Historically, financial institutions that have experienced security breaches or costly exposure to operational and other kinds of risks have tended to keep these incidents under wraps.

The conventional wisdom was that it was bad for the brand and bad for the business to talk about these situations. But times have changed –- the developments of the past couple of years in the financial services industry have served to demystify risk management in many ways. At the same time, with e-crimes and other kinds of online security breaches becoming more sophisticated and prevalent, some industry players are calling for more openness and collaboration as a way to try to identify and prevent attacks before they compromise critical customer information.

The growth of more sophisticated attacks on our critical infrastructure, exploits that compromise our "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) and the risks associated with wrong, invalid or corrupted information will continue to accelerate. The loss events are directly tied to the speed and sophistication of the systems associated with people doing their daily tasks, whether it be a person operating a vehicle with computers on board or sensors designed to collect specific information, the systems are faster and more complex.

Sharing information to address the threats from transnational non-state actors who are organized and operating with the intent of exploiting vulnerabilities in the fabric of business have three places to focus their efforts on your systems and controls:

• Design
• Implementation
• Configuration

If business understands that these are three areas that the attackers are focused on, then perhaps they will realize that resources and manpower must be allocated to these key components of the enterprise defense. If you think about each loss you have incurred over the past year, the odds are that your attacker was able to exploit one of these three attributes. Think about it for a minute.

Even if your design is flawless in theory, overtime you may come to find that the wall is not tall enough, the fence not long enough or the door not strong enough. Even if your implementation follows the designers instructions you may find that the environment you operate in is too hot, too isolated or overwhelmed with chaos. Even if your configuration today is a one-to-one match for all known exploits the adversary is watching and monitoring your design and implementation. They are changing their tactics and "Modus Operandi" (MO) to fool you, scare you or to operate in complete stealth mode, until it is too late. This is known as irregular warfare:

When we say irregular warfare, what we're really talking about is a not so new, but newly formalized approach to dealing with challenges. It is a concept and philosophy properly considered in the strategic context that allows us to apply capabilities holistically to achieve desired effects. It's most unique characteristics are the focus on the relevant populations, support to sovereign partners and a linkage to our shared interests. It is a DoD activity not limited to SOF or dependent on a state of war.

Irregular Warfare “the concept” equips us intellectually to deal with a global environment that is characterized by broad ambiguities. These ambiguities are seen in the apolar nature of a world with multiple competitors; both state and non-state. Challenge causations that include crime, extremism and accelerating migration patterns and finally the interdependencies and interconnectivity of economies, communications and media systems and social networks. This is, without question, a highly complex challenge set and we, must be a more capable and sophisticated actor ourselves if we expect to protect our national interests.

In order to better understand how to mitigate operational risks in our institutions, you also have to study the complexity of modern warfare. The speed and complexity of new adversaries, (fraudsters, hackers, spies, terrorists, vandals, corporate raiders) that exploit your Design, Implementation or Configuration can be applied easily to both your accounting controls or security measures. Those organizations that learn how to apply modern day irregular warfare to the 21st century corporate battlefield will not only beat the competition, they will minimize their losses. Operational Risk Management discipline is an essential element that begins with the tone at the top and one enlightened CEO.

Integrity & Ethics: Whistleblower Risk...

Operational Risk Management in your organization may be in need of a more robust awareness campaign.  Malfeasance and ethical wrongdoing is continuously perpetuated in the workplace when those who are victims or witnesses refuse to speak up. Many fear the retaliation by supervisors or other co-workers. This study emphasizes the issue at hand:

Labaton Sucharow LLP yesterday announced the results of its nationwide Ethics & Action Survey. Conducted by ORC International between November 17-20, the survey questioned 1,000 Americans on their knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace and willingness to come forward and report it. With significant financial rewards and strengthened anti-retaliation and anonymity protections offered under Dodd-Frank, an overwhelming 78% of respondents indicated they would report wrongdoing in the workplace if it could be done anonymously, without retaliation and result in a monetary award. In fact, more than one-third (34%) of respondents knew about wrongdoing in the workplace. However, 68% were unaware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a new Whistleblower Program designed to protect and reward individuals who report violations of the federal securities laws.

This kind of Operational Risk doesn't have to involve insider trading or the SEC to be an issue.  Do you have a controlling boss or a bully in the organization who uses their position of power to get what they want at any cost or to force you to look the other direction?  What kind of facts point to their behaviors and the actions by others that contribute to a caustic and toxic work place setting or to further perpetuate the situation?  Whether it is your Fortune 500 public company or your tiny 501(c)3 non-profit does not matter.  When over one-third of the respondents of the ORC Ethics and Action Survey knowingly ignore or are afraid to report incidents of wrongdoing or ethics violations the culture is broken and in need of repair.  The people who have the fiduciary duty to see that this kind of behavior is deterred also have the responsibility to provide the tools and the mechanism for those being victimized and those who are observing the malfeasance to anonymously defend themselves.

So what should you do as an Operational Risk professional to make sure this doesn't happen to the people in your respective organization?  Here is a good start:

Many corporations have internal compliance programs for corporate misconduct. These programs are, in theory, designed to provide an audience for workers who want to report unethical or illegal corporate conduct. Whether to utilize internal compliance reporting procedures is not an easy question to answer. As a general proposition, some believe that where the wrongdoing is pervasive—as in the case of securities fraud—an internal compliance program will not provide an adequate means of redress. Some believe that where the issue involves massive overbilling to the Government, or an allegation that a corporation is receiving significant dollars in unlawful revenue through fraudulent conduct, the internal compliance system will not work.

It's imperative that you also become aware of and communicate to employees and volunteers what their rights are outside the formal processes that are in place within the organization. Sometimes the nature of the ethics violations will not easily fall into the category for the internal compliance department.

So even "A Decade After the Fall of Enron" the laws and the rules provide us with a false sense of security from the corporate and workplace malfeasance that so many U.S. citizens are being subjected to on a daily basis.  And based upon the current-state-of-play around the beltway in Washington, DC you can expect that the coordination and cooperation is increasing by the minute.

The increased collaboration among the alphabet soup of enforcement and regulatory agencies is also due to a collateral effect of the current financial crisis: declining agency budgets. In the current downward budget cycle, agencies are working in concert more than ever before. This trend is exacerbated by a change in the mission of the FBI in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, shifting resources to counterterrorism and creating a need for other agencies to play an increased role. The overarching lesson from this increased collaboration is clear: Gone are the days that inside or in-house counsel can assume that the state or federal agency with whom they are dealing is acting alone; it is increasingly likely there are additional state or federal agencies involved, resulting in overlapping criminal, civil or regulatory exposure.

If you are charged with the position of the Senior Operational Risk professional in your organization, this topic of wrongdoing in the workplace can not be overlooked any longer.  It is not too late to create a "Defensible Standard of Care" and to turn the word "Integrity" into a cultural pursuit for all to aspire to, before it is too late.

Deepwater Energy Risk: Protecting Business Performance...

The Operational Risk professionals are applying the use of effective software tools in the Energy Sector. After all, the core disciplines of OPS Risk lie with safety and security and the current reality of deepwater drilling beyond 8,000 feet of ocean is here now.

There are few organizations that understand the risks associated with drilling and capturing precious natural resources under these demanding conditions more than the Marine Well Containment Company, (MWCC) based in Houston, TX USA. This new and quickly expanding consortium of ten energy exploration companies have banded together to address the "All Hazards" requirements as a result of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Never before, have so few private sector energy companies converged to take on readiness, and managing operational risks with so much capital and mission focus.

Simultaneously, others close to the maritime risk management industry such as Lloyds Register Group have embarked on the bold mission to assist organizations like MWCC in the future quest for our insatiable thirst for energy. They too, understand the necessity for mitigation and prevention of another Macondo incident where a blowout preventer failed:

ModuSpec BV and Scandpower AS, members of the Lloyd’s Register Group, are developing a new tool with origins from the nuclear power industry that may prove highly useful to subsea engineers, offshore drilling managers, and regulators.

Operational Risk Management (ORM) is the process that evaluates the likelihood of a casualty occurring while comparing it to its associated consequences. BOP Monitor, a new tool under development by Scandpower applies ORM principles in a highly specific manner to one of the most important, and highly complex systems on board a drilling rig, the blow out preventer.

Last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster cast an enormous spotlight on blow out preventer technology because the one sitting atop the Macondo Well failed to accomplish its mission, and millions of gallons of oil spilled into the sea. A one-in-a-million chance? Perhaps. In the decades since subsea blowout preventers have been used, countless have worked as-designed mitigating the disastrous consequences we all saw last summer. As the industry moves toward the arctic however, failure of these systems is absolutely not an option and risk management is of utmost importance to operators and coastal states.

The combination of MWCC and Lloyds Register to address the challenges ahead in deepwater drilling is a natural, in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond. Perhaps even more so, is the division Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) who are experts in Business Assurance and protecting business performance. They are the people who go beyond the words in a regulation or international standard to apply a holistic and multi-faceted approach to your business achieving higher performance. MWCC will need that business assurance and performance management going forward if they are to work in concert with the United States regulatory agencies such as Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation Enforcement (BOEMRE).

All of the plans and processes will not be enough for those operators who are drilling in deepwater. This is exactly why exercising and testing those people, plans and processes will be a verified requirement:

Tracking and verification of exercise requirements for spill responders is an BOEMRE function that ensures that all responders have the required experience and expertise to respond to an offshore facility spill. Operators are required to conduct annual Spill Management Team “table top” exercises. These drills are required to test the Spill Management Team’s organization, communication, and decision-making in managing a response. The operator is also required to conduct an annual deployment exercise of the equipment staged at onshore locations identified in their plan. Each type of equipment staged onshore must be deployed and operated every 3 years. The operator is required to exercise their entire response plan every 3 years. Another exercise that tests the ability of the operator to communicate information in a timely manner is the required annual notification exercise required for every facility that is manned on a 24-hour basis. The operator must notify BOEMRE at least 30 days prior to these drills occurring. This notice provides an opportunity for BOEMRE to witness the exercise or to request changes in the frequency or location of the exercise, equipment to be deployed and operated, or deployment procedures or strategies. BOEMRE can also evaluate the results of these exercises and advise the owner/operator of any needed changes in response equipment, procedures or strategies.

The operational risk readiness factor is at the core of all of the exploration companies as it pertains to the Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS). All of the MWCC consortium companies will already be well versed in "Operating Integrity Management Systems" yet, as all ten come together to work on a combined solution, a baseline of standards and guidelines will be paramount to their inevitable success.

Remember, all of this focus is on the prevention of another "All Hazards" incident. Much of which stems from the lack of confidence in equipment or procedures being replicated by humans, at just the right moment and if an emergency condition presents itself. That is why testing and exercising the multi-facets of the entire spectrum of threats is necessary, beyond those related just to the equipment integrity or failure:

More specifically, the goal of an offshore energy exploration and production safety regime must ensure that:

• Life, environment and property are protected in an effective, consistent, transparent and predictable way; both for those directly affected and involved in offshore operations.

• Risks are properly evaluated and all prevention and mitigation measures are identified;

• Control measures are implemented and maintained by all parties in accordance with mandatory risk assessments as well as what is prescribed by regulation;

• Conditions of safeguards, facilities, procedures, personnel and organizations are continuously monitored throughout the lifetime for proper functioning and compliance with all regulatory requirements and to assure that risks do not increase;

• Technical innovation and efficiency improvements can be implemented safely and responsibly.

And then there is the kind of risk, that many are still not thinking about in the Gulf of Mexico. The risk that exists in other offshore drilling regions of the globe today:

Gunmen attack ExxonMobil supply vessel kidnapping one, wounding another

September 30, 2011

By Dorothy Davis

Industry sources have reported that gunmen have attacked a ship supplying an ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) oil rig off the coast of Nigeria, kidnapping one crew member and injuring another.

Nigel Cookey-Gam, a spokesman for the ExxonMobil subsidiary Mobil Producing Nigeria (MPN) told The Associated Press that the kidnapping happened early Friday (09/30) off the coast of Nigeria's Akwa Ibom state.

"Mobil Producing Nigeria, operator of the joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, confirms that in the early hours of Friday, some armed men attacked a supply vessel near one of our platforms, offshore Akwa Ibom State," Cookey-Gam offered in the official statement. “The incident has been reported to security and relevant government agencies”

According to ExxonMobil, MPN is the second largest oil producer in Nigeria having begun production of crude oil in February 1970 from the Idoho field, located off the coast of Akwa Ibom State.

Violence and extortion driven kidnappings have been prevalent in Nigeria’s oil and gas -rich southern delta since 2006 when militants kicked-off a series of attacks targeting oil companies. In 2009 a government amnesty program offering Niger Delta rebels an unconditional pardon and cash payments brought about a short period of reprieve, but has not been successful in quelling the targeted violence in mostly impoverished the region.

Deepwater Energy Risk in the next decade will be expanding off the coast of Brazil and in the Arctic:

In a warming and changing Arctic, China is stepping up its activities in the Arctic Ocean Basin. While China’s interests and policy objectives in the Arctic Ocean Basin remain unclear, Beijing is increasingly active and vocal on the international stage on issues that concern the region. To that end, China is actively seeking to develop relationships with Arctic states and participate in Arctic multilateral organizations such as the Arctic Council. The region includes a rich basket of natural resources: The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbon resources are found in the Arctic region along with 9 percent of the world's coal along with other economically critical minerals. There is presently scarce open source information on China's Arctic policy and very few public pronouncements on the Arctic by Chinese officials.

Legal Risk: General Counsel Digital Leadership...

Operational Risks continue to plague any senior manager with the title of "Corporate General Counsel". "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" remains ever so challenging. General Counsel digital leadership is required by the Board of Directors. A recent Corporate Executive Board Report outlined some of their top line issues in a recent Corporate Counsel article by Catherine Dunn:

1. Regulatory issues will converge, while regulation of issues will fragment.

What it means: Common issues—such as data privacy, executive compensation, anti-bribery, and antitrust—are gaining importance in the eyes of regulators the world over, says Lee. But countries and states are regulating those issues in different ways, which makes it more difficult for companies—and in-house legal teams—to harmonize their policies.

2. Information will grow exponentially.

What it means: E-discovery requests are getting bigger (think terabytes, not gigabytes) and the quality of meta-data that could be subpoenaed is getting better (like someone's location, as identified by GPS technology). As more and more information comes into play, the study finds, it "will increase the premium of how companies organize and manage their information."

3. Dueling demands for corporate transparency and consumer privacy will collide.

What it means: Consumer demands for privacy will place more emphasis on data security and how companies shore up their IT infrastructure. "The end result for legal departments is that, at the very least, they're going to need to become more [technologically] literate," says Lee. And again, legal teams will also have to deal with a variable set of regulations, depending on where companies operate.

While consumers want to protect their own information, they also want to to have more information about corporations, information about executive compensation packages, private conversations between executives, and company investments.

4. The legal department's center of gravity will shift.

What it means: As companies expand into emerging markets to capitalize on growth opportunities, risks will follow. "It's going to be more important for those risks to be managed locally," Lee says. The report hypothesizes, then, that in-house legal teams will become more decentralized, decamping from corporate headquarters for local terrain. "Culture is an often-underestimated factor with regard to risk," Lee adds. Seeing as how different countries identify, report, and react to misconduct in different ways, that will also add to the need for on-site legal teams.

Another facet of this shift is that in-house lawyers will take on additional responsibilities—such as auditing and keeping an eye on corporate integrity and employee behavior.

5. The legal services market will mature.

What it means: If five to 10 years ago companies wondered which law firm to partner with, today it's not just traditional firms that are competing for the work, Lee says. Legal- and business-processes outsourcers are "very good for discrete pieces of work," such as discovery and document review, he says, and that could "rival or surpass the quality of law firms."

How fast is fast enough these days to provide your members or customers notice that their bank account has been hacked and money has been transfered to transnational criminal syndicates across the globe? Six hours is too long according to this latest suit against Comerica Bank in Michigan, USA:

It started with a simple e-mail that landed in the inbox of Experi-Metal Inc.'s controller, Keith Maslowski, in January 2009. The message appeared to come from the company's bank, and Maslowski followed the directions to click on a link and enter confidential log-in data and other codes as part of routine maintenance. The details are laid out in a lawsuit that the small metal shop in Sterling Heights, Michigan, filed against Comerica. Scam artists used Maslow­ski's codes to initiate more than 85 wire transfers, moving $1.9 million out of the company's account to China, Estonia, Finland, Russia, and Scotland.

It took the bank only six hours to spot the unusual activity, notify the customer, and stop the transfers. But it wasn't good enough for the federal judge. Court documents show that the company had only two prior transfers in two years. On June 13 U.S. district court judge Patrick Duggan in Detroit ruled that Comerica was responsible for the $560,000 that remained unrecovered because the bank didn't act "in good faith." The judge ruled that "a bank dealing fairly with its customer, under these circumstances, would have detected and/or stopped the fraudulent wire activity earlier."

Yet another example of the Operational Risks that require more preventive measures for the savvy "General Counsel" (GC) of 2011 and beyond. To what degree are there other "Tripwires" in place for the GC to become a nerve center for detecting those incidents and behavior that is strange or not normal. After all, you can't be everywhere and no one can effectively work 24 x 7. So there remains only one answer. Automation working with Operational Risk experts.

How do the programmers know how many transfers are out of a normal range? In the case of Comerica, Judge Duggan ruled that six hours was too long to stop the fraudulent transfers. You see, the risk for establishing the right business rules can't lie completely with anyone who is doing the programming. Business management, consumers and risk management experts all need to be in the process of developing the triggers and alerts that allow faster response on incidents such as this one.

The number of data breaches and other cyber criminal activities will continue to rise as long as the General Counsel remains aloof or segmented from the departments and business units that can establish effective automated "Trip Wires" to get notified when something is "Not Normal".

Here are just few of the larger and most reported incidents in 2011 according to Law.com:

2011
April 1: Epsilon Inc., the world's largest e-mail marketer, reveals an unauthorized entry into Epsilon's e-mail system, exposing customer names and e-mail addresses.

April 26: Sony Network Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment America disclose a "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyberattack designed to steal personal and credit card information." The intruders stole identity data from about 77 million PlayStation Network and Qriocity customer accounts.

May 10: Citigroup Inc. discovers a breach exposing more than 360,000 customer names, account numbers, and contact information. Citigroup waits almost a month before notifying its customers, and later says $2.7 million was stolen.

May 24: The Los Angeles Times reports that a Bank of America Corporation insider leaked detailed customer data to a ring of identity thieves resulting in $10 million in losses. The bank later confirmed the loss, which occurred sometime last year but came to light only recently, when the bank began informing customers.

June 15: Automatic Data Processing Inc., the world's largest payroll processor, says personal data of one of its 550,000 corporate clients was breached. It ­provided no details.

So what is the answer for the General Counsel? The "Plan-Do-Check-Act" lifecycle applies to the GC just as others in the corporate enterprise. Information Governance is no different for the legal department than it is for the CIO. The problem is, how much are both working in concert so that the holders and managers of digital information are working side by side the legal eagles of the company? Not enough in a world where transnational criminals, advanced persistent threat and insiders are testing your controls and the latency of your alert mechanisms on a daily basis.

The companies plagued with the incidents highlighted in the popular press are working hard to prevent the vulnerabilities exploited by those tasked with finding them. They have invested millions of dollars in technology and sophisticated tools for detection and defense. In todays world of 4 Billion devices connected to wireless networks and ultimately the Internet; working hard just will not suffice anymore.

The General Counsel working in concert with the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Chief Information Officer (CIO) and even the Chief Security Officer (CSO) along with outside contract consultants typically defines who is responsible for the ongoing defense of the corporate enterprise. The question now remains; "What is the single Management System that they are all using to manage risk in the organization?" Unfortunately, the answer may be that they are not using the same management system. When your organization has not agreed upon a single management system for risk management then there is no wonder that you have opened yourself up to the possibility of failure. Utilizing a single international standard such as ISO 27001: 2005 could be the beginning of a unified effort by the entire stakeholder community in your organization.

Certifying your Information Security Management System against ISO/IEC 27001 can bring the following benefits to your organization:

• Demonstrates the independent assurance of your internal controls and meets corporate governance and business continuity requirements
• Independently demonstrates that applicable laws and regulations are observed
• Provides a competitive edge by meeting contractual requirements and demonstrating to your customers that the security of their information is paramount
• Independently verifies that your organizational risks are properly identified, assessed and managed, while formalizing information security processes, procedures and documentation
• Proves your senior management’s commitment to the security of its information
• The regular assessment process helps you to continually monitor your performance and improve

ISO 28000: Bankers Exposed to Supply Chain Risk...

The banking institutions of the globe are on high alert. The Operational Risk doctrine is finally getting beyond the historical threats of fraud and rogue traders to the "New Normal" of other significant business disruptions. It's been on the horizon for some time, yet now Basel is finally enhancing the rules that have so far been ignored or given little consideration:

Banks should bolster their defenses against losses caused by rogue traders, client fraud and other so-called operational risks, global regulators said.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision endorsed updated principles on how banks should protect themselves from risks not directly linked to lending or market movements, the group said today on its website.

The measures add to beefed up capital and liquidity rules to toughen regulation of banks following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Rogue traders such as Jerome Kerviel at Societe Generale (GLE) SA and Nick Leeson at Barings Plc can also wreak havoc on individual institutions, said Nicolas Veron, a senior fellow at economics research group Bruegel.

“Barings was killed by operational risk, and Societe Generale came very close to a near-death experience in 2008,” Veron said in a phone interview from Brussels.

“Does operational risk generally cause systemic crises? No. But it can have a major impact on individual institutions when things go wrong,” said Veron.

Today’s changes build on rules from 2004 that require lenders to hold reserves against risks including natural disasters, computer hacking, systems failures, theft, fraud and unauthorized trading.

So where is the weakest link in the 63 "Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk"? We still think it is this one, number 54 under the Principle of Mitigation and Control:

54. Outsourcing is the use of a third party – either an affiliate within a corporate group or an unaffiliated external entity – to perform activities on behalf of the bank. Outsourcing can involve transaction processing or business processes. While outsourcing can help manage costs, provide expertise, expand product offerings, and improve services, it also introduces risks that management should address. The board and senior management are responsible for understanding the operational risks associated with outsourcing arrangements and ensuring that effective risk management policies and practices are in place to manage the risk in outsourcing activities.

The reason that we believe this to be a single-point-of-failure, is the tremendous number of outsourced services from the critical informations systems infrastructure in the banking industry to the supply chain risk of the major global firms who the banks themselves are investing in for the continued commerce of the world.

One key aspect of this area of Operational Risk has to do with the sense of risk mitigation that usually occurs with the use of a "Service Level Agreement" (SLA) with a vendor or service provider. The General Counsel and the legal team are responsible for the prudent review and drafting of outsourcing contracts. This (SLA) in many cases is never audited or tested to find out how a supplier would respond or behave, during a major incident that impacts their particular area of supply chain operations. This brings us to ISO 28000.

ISO 28000:2007 specifies the requirements for a security management system, including those aspects critical to security assurance of the supply chain. Security management is linked to many other aspects of business management. Aspects include all activities controlled or influenced by organizations that impact on supply chain security. These other aspects should be considered directly, where and when they have an impact on security management, including transporting these goods along the supply chain.

Regardless of the legal documents agreed upon with you and your Tier 1 suppliers, you can bet that they have their own supply chains that you have not done any due diligence on. Can you trust that all of your Tier 1 suppliers have gone down another layer or two to ensure their own survivability for a myriad of operational risks? Adopting an international management system such as ISO 28000, will send you on your way to a more adaptive enterprise and with improved business resilience.

Now the question might be, how many major banks or hedge funds are major investors in companies such as DP World? Are they ISO 28000 certified to be more business resilient at their respective supply chain points of failure?

DP World Cochin has announced that the International Container Transhipment Terminal (ICTT) at Vallarpadam has been certified under the ISO 28000 Standard for Supply Chain Security Management system, and has joined the other DP World terminals in India to be the only container terminal in the country to be certified in port security. Dubai: In 2007, Port operator DP World has raised $3.25 billion in Islamic and conventional bond sales to refinance existing debt and fund its expansion. The company said it exceeded its target of $3 billion for the two bond issues. Barclays Capital, Citi, Deutsche Bank and Lehman Brothers lead managed the two issues, helped by Dubai Islamic Bank for the sukuk. DP World, the world's third largest marine terminal operator, manages 42 terminals in 22 countries. Its investment commitments run into billions of dollars over the next few years in several countries, including India, Turkey, Britain, Senegal, Peru and China. Total capacity at DP World's ports was 48 million TEUs ((twenty-foot equivalent container units) in 2006 and is expected to increase to 84 million TEUs by 2016 when new terminals are built.

So the final analysis on Operational Risk Management in your particular supply chain, may very well be beyond the surface of the Service Level Agreement (SLA). The General Counsel and Legal team would be highly advised to dig deeper than their Tier I suppliers in "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care." Barclays, Citi and Deutsche should be more confident that DP World is one of a few companies managing their Operational Risks with ISO 28000 at one port. Now your next step, may be to find out whether the precious semiconductors you need to manufacture your companies electronic products are in the hands of the DP World Dubai Port Jebel Ali, Terminal 1 or DP World Cochin.

You should not be alarmed that DP World has a vacancy for the SVP, Global Operations:

VAC2531 - Senior Vice President - Global Operations

Division: Operations

Location: Dubai, U.A.E.

Department: DPW FZE DUBAI PORT INTL - DEP

Closing Date: 11-Jul-2011

About the Role:

This position reports to Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer - DP World and the main purpose of the role is to develop, lead and assist in the implementation of DP World's standards in the management of Safety, Environment, Security, Operations and Engineering, in line with DP World business and Container Terminal Strategies.

FCPA Alert: Dodd-Frank vs. Powerball...

Board Directors are ever more tuned into the recent 2011 case settlements in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. This is because Operational Risk Professionals are being much more proactive than years past on uncovering malfeasance in the supply chain operations of major global conglomerates:

• Notable 2011 FCPA Settlements. 2010 was a record year for FCPA enforcement, and thus far 2011 has been no different. In the first half of 2011, 10 notable FCPA enforcement actions have settled, resulting in a total of about $490 million in penalties, disgorgement and prejudgment interest:

1. Tenaris agreed to pay a $3.5 million criminal penalty and $5.4 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

2. Rockwell Automation agreed to pay disgorgement of $1.7 million, prejudgment interest of $590,000 and a civil penalty of $400,000.

3. Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $21.4 million criminal fine and $48.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, as well as about $7.9 million in related United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office recovery.

4. Comverse agreed to pay a $1.2 million criminal fine and $1.6 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

5. Ball Corporation agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty.

6. Jeffrey Tesler, a key member of the TSKJ-Bonny Island joint venture accused of being part of a scheme to bribe Nigerian officials in exchange for contracts related to the construction of liquefied natural gas facilities, forfeited nearly $149 million, the largest FCPA-related forfeiture imposed on an individual to date.

7. JGC Corporation of Japan agreed to pay $218.8 million in criminal fines.

8. IBM agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty, disgorgement of $5.3 million and $2.7 million in prejudgment interest.

9. Tyson Foods, Inc. agreed to pay a $4 million criminal penalty and $1.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

10. Maxwell Technologies agreed to pay $8 million in criminal penalties, as well as $6.4 million to settle SEC civil charges.

Are any Board Directors out there amazed that companies such as IBM are still being impacted by the FCPA risk to the enterprise? Maybe more importantly, why is a Japanese company paying a criminal fine of over two hundred million dollars?

JGC CORPORATION is a Japan-based company mainly engaged in the engineering business. The Company operates in two business segments. The Integrated Engineering segment is engaged in the planning, design, procurement, construction and testing of equipment, appliances and facilities for petroleum, petroleum processing, petrochemistry, gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), general chemistry, nuclear energy, metal smelting, biotechnology, food, pharmaceutical, logistics, information technology, environment protection and pollution prevention industries. This segment is also engaged in the provision of related inspection, maintenance and information processing services, as well as water and power generation business, among others. The Catalyst and Chemical segment is involved in the manufacture and sale of catalyst agents, functional materials, deodorants and enzymatic filters, electronic materials and high-performance ceramic products, as well as next-generation energy related products.

The Board of Directors of any transnational organization should be doing their homework on the reasons why JGC Corporation has employed an independent compliance consultant for the next two years and paid the $200M. fine. Remember, your supply chain and your business partners may be the reason why you are sitting around the Board Room table negotiating with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The larger question is, could this have been prevented? Is this a risk that can be mitigated within the corporate enterprise? Has the company done everything in it's capacity to put the right controls in place and the tools to keep the possibility of FCPA ever finding its way back to the Board Room Agenda? Do you know all of your joint venture partners are from the U.S. and all of the projects that they are working on together?

JGC’s agreement to pay the fine brings to $1.5 billion the total penalties in a case against a joint venture known as TSKJ that included Houston-based Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Paris- basedTechnip SA (TEC) and Dutch engineering firm Snamprogetti Netherlands BV, according to a Justice Department statement.

The joint venture’s prosecution represents one of the biggest foreign bribery cases undertaken by the Justice Department since it stepped up pursuit of such cases starting in 2008 when Munich-based Siemens, Germany’s largest engineering company, paid $1.6 billion to settle U.S. and German probes.

“Each of the four companies in the TSKJ joint venture, the former chairman of the U.S. joint venture partner, and several other individuals have now been held accountable for a massive conspiracy to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain lucrative construction contracts,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman said in the statement.

What is the cost of a FCPA investigation beyond the fine? Imagine for a moment the number of e-mail messages that have to be acquired, preserved and examined. Add up the billable hours for subject matter experts to review the remaining mountain of data to determine the final relevancy of a communication with the matter and the people associated with the project. As an example, what was the magnitude of the Siemens case?

According to court records, it was a vast undertaking spanning 34 countries, with private investigators conducting more than 1,750 interviews and gathering more than 100 million documents. They reviewed approximately 14 million of those documents and gave the Justice Department and the SEC a small subset, about 24,000, according to a Siemens tally.

So what is one of the answers or solutions to finding the "Red Flags" and to self-disclose the issue to the proper authorities early and often? First off, you need to develop your corporate "Human Intelligence" (HUMINT) capability, around your Corporate Intelligence Unit (CIU). Developing and building an awareness factor in a pervasive manner is one way to do this. In order to get your HUMINT working for you, the people on the front lines and in the middle of the corporate hierarchy need to understand and internalize these "Red Flags". If the monthly or quarterly bulletin from the CEO, discussing the integrity factor of the company supply chain partners raises the issue of ethical behavior around a particular scenario, this will educate and increase awareness with those people in the enterprise who comprise this HUMINT network.

Sticks and carrots or other methods for awarding compliance is so 1980's and 1990's. Wake up! In order to bring your global enterprise into the next decade of the 2000's, you have to start using the methods, processes and tools your deal makers use to run their business (SAP, Siebel CRM, Oracle). When was the last time the CEO visited the deal makers pipeline meeting to review and discuss the joint ventures or pending projects that the business developers are forecasting to close in the next quarter? This is the perfect time for the CEO to ask them to fire any partner, agent, consultant, contractor or vendor that does not meet the foundation for the companies "Corporate Integrity Standards." Does your CEO even know what Social CRM is all about?

And how quickly the lessons that should have been learned, are soon forgotten. Not any more. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, employees, partners and other persons who provide original information on an FCPA violation by a public company can receive between 10% and 30% of the resulting fines as a "Whistleblower" bounty.

We wonder whether the odds of winning the next "Powerball" Lottery in the U.S. might be more difficult than getting 20% of a $200 million dollar fine. Global corporations should be preparing their internal processes for Ethics and Integrity Management now. This Operational Risk will soon be more apparent as employees understand the odds of "Winning".