“Compliance Officer To Leave Barclays,” The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2017 B1. The compliance officer at Barclays responsible for the whistleblower program settled “an employment dispute” with Barclays right before a hearing in London. The CEO had earlier tried to learn the identity of the employee who complained about his hiring of a buddy. The UK regulatory authority is still investigating that matter.
But the CEO remains in place. Go figure. I guess the Board’s sense of ethics is flexible.
I wonder what the employment dispute was about?
Filed under Board, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Internal controls, Oversight, Oversight, Policy, Privacy, Supervision, Third parties
“CEO Quits Embattled Firm,” The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2017 B2. The CEO of SoFi (an online lender) quits after allegations of improper workplace behavior. He also steps down as chairman of the board. His behavior towards women was an issue.
Five years earlier, there had been similar allegations. It only took five years!
What does it say about a company where it takes five years to oust the Chairman of the Board for inappropriate behavior? What does it say about the culture that was allowed to persist?
Who’s in charge when the Chairman is bent? Will the ads stop now?
Filed under Board, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, Internal controls, Oversight
“Infosys CEO Leaves In Row With Founder,” The Wall Street Journal, August 19, 2017 B3. Gibson Dunn had been investigating some internal improprieties. The former CEO, who was hired by Infosys from outside the company, will stay on as executive vice chairman. He is replaced by a long-time Infosys employee.
Seems a bit of a mixed message. The founder of the company, who left 3 years ago, complains about operations under the new (and now former) CEO, but the former CEO sticks around on the Board. Who’s really in charge? Change is hard.
Filed under Board, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, Investor relations, Oversight, Third parties
In the case of another serial offender, “Mylan Settles U.S. Claims on EpiPen,” The Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2017 B5. Mylan pays $465 million for misclassifying the EpiPen as a generic, which affects how Medicaid reimbursements are made.
Funny how Mylan is so careful to not make mistakes that result in them getting less money. The current shareholders keep getting these large bills.
Filed under Accuracy, Business Case, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Definition, Duty, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Protect assets, Risk
In a departure from normal practice, I comment upon an event unreported, as far as I can tell, in The Wall Street Journal. For me, some things transcend politics.
Maybe I missed it. Or maybe The Wall Street Journal didn’t see fit to print the leaked transcripts of President Trump’s post-inauguration phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia.
What does it say that this story, blaring over the TV newswires, wasn’t printed? Does it say something about some organizations placing the Nation’s security above their own circulation numbers? Is that a control you can rely on? Apparently not from everyone.
Even if the paper had or did print something on this, what does the leak of those transcripts say about information governance? First, does the White House have adequate controls and culture in place? Clearly not. Maybe General Kelly can help with that.
But what about the person who signed an oath and nonetheless decided to leak these classified transcripts to the press, thinking little or nothing about the impact on future calls between world leaders? What’s their understanding of duty? Placing the Nation’s needs above those of party or self?
Hang ’em high.
Filed under Access, Compliance, Controls, Culture, Duty, Employees, Governance, Government, Internal controls, Protect assets, Third parties
“Ex-VW Official Admits Role in Emissions Cheating,” The Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2017 B3. A former VW “compliance executive” charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, wire fraud, and Clean Air Act violations pleads guilty. He admits he knew about the software used to mislead US environmental regulators. Faces sentencing in criminal case in December.
Hiding information from the government is not a good thing. What was the culture that allowed this to happen? Did people feel a need to do this to compete? Too many car companies have been caught up in such scandals to have it be random.
The shareholders have paid (and are continuing to pay) for the mistakes of the employees of the company. Who else from the company is going to go to jail, or lose his/her job? VW is facing costs in just the US of more than $25 billion and investigations elsewhere. Does the “compliance executive” know of others who also knew? Might he offer up some names before December? People who bought VWs are going to want to recover damages from someone.
Filed under Accuracy, Analytics, Board, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Oversight, Value
You hire independent contractors to drive under your corporate banner, and pay you a portion of the fees they collect. You buy cars and lease them to the contractors to drive. What could go wrong? The cars catch on fire.
“Uber Knowingly Leased Unsafe Cars to Drivers,’ The Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2017 A1. Apparently, the cars that were leased had been recalled, and not fixed. Who knew what when? Did Corporate in the US know before the fire? Or is this the result of a business model or culture where working around rules is prized above complying with them?