White Collar Defense, Internal Investigations, & Regulatory Compliance

Corporate Governance & Post-Investigation Compliance

Remediation, compliance program design, and corporate governance reform following investigations and government enforcement actions.

Overview

The end of a government investigation or enforcement action is not the end of a company's legal risk; it is the beginning of a supervised remediation period. Consent orders, deferred prosecution agreements, non-prosecution agreements, and plea agreements all impose ongoing compliance obligations that are monitored by regulators, independent monitors, or both. A violation of those obligations can reopen the enforcement action or trigger a new one.

Fridman Fels & Soto counsels companies through the post-investigation phase with the same rigor applied to the investigation itself: building compliance programs that satisfy regulatory requirements, training employees and management, documenting remediation steps, and communicating with monitors and regulators in a way that builds the compliance record the company needs for eventual release from oversight.

Michael Garcia's accounting background and compliance expertise, developed over ten years of White & Case investigations for global companies, allows the firm to engage directly with the substantive compliance questions: what controls are actually adequate, what monitoring is genuinely effective, and what documentation will satisfy regulators and independent monitors who have seen inadequate programs before.

Our Approach

Post-investigation compliance begins with a gap analysis: what did the investigation reveal about the company's actual compliance failures, and what does the enforcement resolution require the company to do about them? The gap between those two is the compliance program that needs to be built. We work from the enforcement resolution's specific requirements and build backward to the program design.

Independent compliance monitors, required by many DPAs and consent orders, need to be managed as a relationship rather than a burden. The company that builds a genuine compliance record, communicates proactively with its monitor, and demonstrates measurable improvement exits monitorship on time. Companies that treat the monitor as an adversary create risk of extension and additional findings.

Representative Experience

White Collar & Government Investigations

  • Public company audit-committee investigation

    Engaged by a public company's CEO to assist an audit-committee investigation into allegations concerning personal-versus-business expenses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a deferred prosecution agreement?

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is an agreement between a company and the DOJ in which the DOJ agrees to defer criminal prosecution for a specified period, typically two to three years, in exchange for the company's payment of a monetary penalty, admission of facts, and compliance with compliance-related obligations. If the company satisfies the DPA obligations, the charges are dismissed at the end of the period. A breach of the DPA can result in prosecution on the original charges.

What does an independent compliance monitor do?

An independent compliance monitor is appointed by the DOJ or a regulatory agency to assess and report on a company's compliance program over the monitorship period, typically two to three years. The monitor conducts periodic reviews, tests the adequacy of controls, interviews employees, and reports to the government. The company bears the monitor's fees, which can be substantial. A company that demonstrates genuine compliance improvement can petition for early termination of the monitorship.

The DOJ compliance monitor just issued his first report on our company and the findings are critical. What should we do?

A critical first report from a compliance monitor is serious, but it is not the end of the monitorship, and it does not mean a violation of the DPA. Monitors are required to report their findings to the DOJ, and a critical report signals that the company's compliance remediation is not meeting the required standard. The practical response: (1) Engage with the monitor immediately and professionally; the relationship between the company and its monitor determines whether the monitorship proceeds cooperatively or adversarially; (2) Review every finding in the report with outside counsel to assess its factual accuracy and legal significance. Monitors make mistakes, and monitor findings that are factually incorrect can be raised with the DOJ; (3) Develop a specific, time-bound remediation plan responding to each critical finding; vague commitments to improvement will not satisfy the monitor or the DOJ; (4) Communicate the plan to the DOJ directly and proactively. The government's primary interest is compliance improvement; a company that responds to a critical monitor report with concrete, measurable remediation is in a fundamentally different position than one that argues with the findings or implements superficial changes.

Team

Facing a government investigation?

Time matters. Contact us before the first interview request.

Contact the Firm