These are some of the compliance-related stories that recently caught my attention.
Compliance Goes to School by Geoffrey Parsons Miller
In my view there is no one “right” answer to the question of where compliance fits in a law school’s curriculum, just as there is no “one-size-fits-all” compliance program. A good model, however, is that core concepts can be taught in a first-year or second-year class on the administrative state (a number of law schools already include a required class on the administrative state as part of their core curricula). Compliance could then be offered as a second-year or third-year class. [More…]
Check Your Use of “Check the Box” by Adam Turteltaub in SCCE’s Compliance Ethics Blog
But for all the talk about avoiding “check the box” compliance programs, I wonder how many of them there really are. I also wonder if we’re doing ourselves more harm than good by suggesting that the business world is full of “check the box” programs. Also, I’m not sure how to create a “check the box” program, given how complex some of the boxes are.[More…]
SEC $3.5 Million Mystery Whistleblower Reward by Matt Kelly in Radical Compliance
We received another glimpse into the Securities and Exchange Commission’s thinking about whistleblowers on Friday—although as usual with SEC, details are sketchy and the primary thought is “we support whistleblowers as expansively as possible.” Compliance officers, take note.
The glimpse came in the form of a $3.5 million whistleblower reward issued on Friday. To whom? We don’t know. Against what firm, or for what type of misconduct? Unclear. Apparently, the media had already reported on potential misconduct at the company (yay media!) and the SEC had already opened an investigation. That led the whistleblower to provide his own information about said misconduct.
[More…]
What’s up with Crowdfunding? So far, not much (but a fix may be coming) by Robert C. White Jr. in Securities Edge
The main problems with the new crowdfunding regulations are practical ones. First, the funding limit of $1 million each year is just too low for most companies. This is similar to the problem that we saw with Regulation A for a long time – essentially no one used it because the limit was too low in relation to the costs (although the old Regulation A limit was $5 million, substantially higher than the current crowdfunding limit). Regulation A+ has fixed this problem for Regulation A offerings, but the low limit remains a huge challenge for crowdfunding offerings. This low limit problem is made worse by the costs associated with a crowdfunding offering, which will be substantial for a small company. Legal and accounting work will be required. Companies must also use a registered funding portal in connection with the offering, and this will add to the cost burden. Finally, companies cannot “test the waters” before beginning an offering to see if the offering is even viable for them. The combination of all of these factors creates significant practical roadblocks for crowdfunding that cannot be overcome without some adjustments (as discussed below). [More…]
WHY YOUR COMPANY SHOULD HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ZERO TOLERANCE BY ROBERT ZAFFT
For corporate compliance purposes, however, “tolerance” does not mean a lack of standards or failure to impose consequences for failing to adhere to standards. Rather, “tolerance” needs to be understood in an engineering sense, meaning an essential part of businesses processes and cultures that are dedicated to continuous improvement. As these processes and cultures improve – as they become more transparent and consistent – the degree of “tolerance” will narrow. [a href=”http://corporatecomplianceinsights.com/company-zero-tolerance-zero-tolerance/”>More…]
If you enjoy Compliance Building, please support Pan-Mass Challenge ride to fight cancer. Donate here: https://www2.pmc.org/egifts/DC0176
