Wednesday, September 28, 2011

District attorneys; US attorneys

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: jbaker@ndaa.org
Sent: 9/22/2011 7:44:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: District attorneys and business ethics
Dear Mr. Baker,
I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Parties who have an interest or should have an interest in this topic include lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, corporation lawyers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, tort reform organizations, and consumer protection organizations.
I am sending this email to you to inquire whether the National District Attorneys Association would care to participate in dialogue on the subject of my project or whether you can refer me to any other entity or person who might be an information or policy source that could speak about the subject of my project from the perspective of district attorneys.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Judges associations

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: aja@ncsc.dni.us
Sent: 9/22/2011 7:09:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Judges and business ethics
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Parties who have an interest or should have an interest in this topic include lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, corporation lawyers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, tort reform organizations, and consumer protection organizations.
I am sending this email to you to inquire whether the American Judges Association would care to participate in dialogue on the subject of my project or whether you can refer me to any other entity or person who might be an information or policy source that could speak about the subject of my project from the perspective of judges.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

National Association of Attorneys General

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: jmcpherson@naag.org
Sent: 9/22/2011 7:03:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Project to investigate diverse perspectives on entity vs. individual liability
Dear Jim,
I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Parties who have an interest or should have an interest in this topic include lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, corporation lawyers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, tort reform organizations, and consumer protection organizations.
I am sending this email to you to inquire whether the National Association of Attorneys General would care to participate in dialogue on the subject of my project.
Our prior email correspondence would suggest that my project is not something that NAAG would be willing to participate in, but I thought I would ask anyway.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

National Association of Corporate Directors

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Education@nacdonline.org, Resources@nacdonline.org
Sent: 9/22/2011 4:20:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: To NACD: Directors and business ethics
Dear Ms. Gruss and Ms. Meyer,
I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Parties who have an interest or should have an interest in this topic include lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, corporation lawyers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, tort reform organizations, and consumer protection organizations.
I am sending this email to you to inquire whether the National Association of Directors would care to participate in dialogue on the subject of my project or whether you can refer me to any other entity or person who might be an information or policy source that could speak about the subject of my project from the perspective of corporate directors.
Thank you.
Rob Shattuck

Sunday, September 25, 2011

9/13/11 WSJ article re entity vs. individual level liability

For ECOA speakers and ethics and compliance contact list

I noticed the below September 13, 2011 Wall Street Journal article reporting further on the Obama administration trying to hold executives personally and criminally responsible for corporate violations of U.S food and drug laws.  I continue very interested in what last week's ECOA speakers think about the question of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability for deterring corporate wrongdoing.  I also hope this was a topic of interest and informal discussion among attendees at the conference last week.

Thanks.
Rob Shattuck
  • The Wall Street Journal

U.S. Targets Drug Executives

Law Allows Courts to Hold Corporate Officials Responsible for Pharma Violations

U.S. authorities are stepping up enforcement of a little-used law—the so-called "responsible corporate officer doctrine"—to hold executives personally and criminally responsible for corporate violations of U.S. food and drug laws.
The development has triggered a new wave of worry among defense lawyers representing health-care executives.
Congress authorized criminal sanctions against corporate officers in 1938 under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The Supreme Court has since interpreted the law to allow prosecutions without evidence that executives knew a crime was committed—a lower standard than for other industries — because of the potential for health-care and food products to cause death and injury.
The doctrine is the prosecutors' "ticket around the need to prove criminal intent," says Michael W. Peregrine, a lawyer at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. "It puts the pistol to the head of the very senior executives." The government responds that the Justice Department looks for cases where it believes the executives truly bear responsibility for the wrongdoing.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the government used the doctrine in a series of liability cases involving dirty food warehouses. But by the late 1980s, its use had declined.
Earlier this year, however, Marc Hermelin, the former chief executive of a Bridgeton, Mo., pharmaceutical maker, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor violations of the food and drug laws as a "responsible corporate officer" in a case involving KV Pharmaceutical Co.'s production and distribution of two oversized morphine sulfate tablets.
A judge ordered Mr. Hermelin to pay a $1 million fine, forfeit $900,000 and serve a sentence of less than 30 days in jail. His lawyer, Jeffrey McFadden, of Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington, D.C., declined to comment.
Lawyers concerned about the revival of the so-called "corporate-officer responsibility doctrine" cite other recent health-sector cases, including one in Philadelphia involving medical-device maker Synthes Inc. and Norian Corp., a subsidiary.
In 2009, federal prosecutors accused the two companies of running an unauthorized trial of a bone filler in spinal procedures. Three patients died, although prosecutors said they couldn't prove the Synthes product was the cause. The companies pleaded guilty and agreed to pay more than $23 million to settle with the government.
Four Synthes executives were accused of wrongdoing. Acknowledging that they were "responsible corporate officers," the employees each pleaded guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor associated with shipping the misbranded product, Norian XR, across state lines.
The four didn't admit involvement in or knowledge of criminal activity, and no agreement was made on whether the allegations that they intentionally committed crimes could be taken into account in their sentencing.
But prosecutors and defense lawyers are now fighting over what they can introduce in their arguments to the judge about sentencing, which could come as soon as this fall. Under current law, misdemeanor cases carry sentences for company executives of up to a year in prison and a maximum fine of $100,000 per count.
"If the government asks the court to impose jail time in this case, it will have a chilling effect on future 'responsible corporate officer' pleas," said Adam Hoffinger of Morrison & Foerster LLP, lead attorney for Thomas Higgins, a former Synthes division president, who is one of the defendants. The lawyers for the other three defendants declined to comment.
A spokesperson for Synthes, which is headquartered in West Chester, Penn., and listed on the Swiss stock exchange, couldn't be reached for comment. Johnson & Johnson has agreed to acquire Synthes for about $21.3 billion in a transaction that is expected to close early next year.
Prosecutions of "responsible" officers trouble defense lawyers in the health sector because the Department of Health and Human Services, citing Medicare law, has sometimes sought to exclude the convicted executives from future participation in Medicare and Medicaid, which can be a career-ending punishment.
Last December, the U.S. District Court in Washington affirmed a federal health-care program exclusion of three Purdue Frederick Co. executives who had earlier pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of the food and drug laws associated with the misbranding of the drug OxyContin.
The Justice Department didn't allege that the three officers participated in or were even aware of the misbranding, but rather that they were "responsible" corporate officers at the time the conduct occurred.
"The exclusion of these individuals by HHS is unprecedented and unjust," said Andrew Good of Good & Cormier, the lawyer for one of the three executives. The exclusions have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he added.
"You're going after defendants who by definition had no idea they [were] committing a violation," said Robert J. Becerra, a Miami-based lawyer who represented ChemNutra Inc., a Nevada pet-food company, and one of the two executives who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and got three years' probation in connection with the import of tainted wheat gluten that killed thousands of dogs and cats.
To be sure, the responsible corporate officer doctrine is just one of several legal tools that the government has used—with mixed success—against health-care executives in recent years.
"There's more focus now on trying to identify whether it's a case where it's appropriate to charge corporate officials with wrongdoing," said John J. Pease, chief of the health-care fraud unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, which brought one of the recent prosecutions.
In May, a federal trial judge acquitted a former GlaxoSmithKline PLC lawyer in a high-profile corporate misconduct case, saying prosecutors shouldn't have brought the case.
This year, the U.S. also used another little-used law to try to force the resignation of Forest Laboratories Inc.'s longtime leader even though he wasn't personally accused of any wrongdoing.
But it ultimately dropped its efforts amid protests from the company and major business groups. The agency said it "considered the information provided by [the executive's] attorneys" in its ultimate decision not to exclude him.
Write to Vanessa O'Connell at vanessa.o'connell@wsj.com and Michael Rothfeld at michael.rothfeld@wsj.com

Saturday, September 17, 2011

DRI Corporate Counsel Committee


From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: DRI Corporate Counsel Committee leadership
Sent: 9/17/2011 6:27:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Email to Mr. John Kouris for DRI Corporate Counsel Committee

To DRI Corporate Counsel Committee leadership:


I sent the below email to Mr. John Kouris on Thursday. The cc's on my email were cc's on a 2009 email from Mr. Kouris to me, plus I added Amy Mass.

I hope you will individually review the below email and the referenced project concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I have circulated information about the project to corporate ethics and compliance officers and I am particularly trying get the attention of speakers at next week's Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference. (See the emails here and here.)

I hope you, as individual Corporate Counsel, will consider my project worthy of your thinking about and you will dialogue about it with your own corporation's ethics and compliance officers and management.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: johnrkouris@DRI.org
CC: Kelly.Freeman@Meadowbrook.com, larry.henke@trane.com, cehiltgen@hiltgenbrewer.com, cairns@gcglaw.com, hsneath@psmn.com, mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com, ccole@srcattorneys.com, thowes@DRI.org, nparz@DRI.org, lconneen@DRI.org, amass@hanover.com
Sent: 9/15/2011 5:58:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Project to investigate diverse perspectives on entity vs. individual liability

Dear Mr. Kouris,
I previously emailed the DRI Corporate Counsel Committee in 2009, and you thoughtfully provided me with this response.
In June, I initiated this project concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Parties who have an interest or should have an interest in this topic include lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, corporation lawyers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
If the DRI Corporate Counsel Committee would like to have input into my project, I would very much like to hear from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Sunday, September 4, 2011

ECOA 2011 conference speakers

[In June, I initiated this project concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate  wrongdoing.  This subject has bearing on or connection with a number of the presentations that will be made at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Assoication annual conference this month (see agenda).  I have sent the below emails to the speakers at the conference soliciting their attention to the subject, plus these emails to the featured speakers]


"Public Trust in Business: Research and Implications of the Important Factors in Developing Trust"
Dean Krehmeyer, Executive Director, Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics; and Kirsten Martin, Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: BRICE@darden.virginia.edu, martink@cua.edu
Sent: 9/4/2011 12:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Public Trust in Business: Research and Implications of the Important Factors in Developing Trust"
Dear Mr. Krehmeyer and Professor Martin,
Your above topic at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month is broad ranging, and it should be interesting how you will present it to ethics and compliance professionals.
I am a citizen activist in the business ethics field, and I offer the following thread between your topic and ethics and compliance:
I believe there is an important question about entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
I further believe that corporate management, on the one hand, and ethics and compliance officers, on the other, could have differing views about the same.
I think this is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations.  Also, other parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the foregoing parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I don't know if you see a thread here that connects up with public trust in business. I think there is a thread. I hope you will take the time to explore it.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Earning a Seat at the Table: Navigating the Perilous Waters of Organizational Power and Politics"
Bill Prachar, Partner, Compliance Systems Legal Group; Susan Ponce, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, Halliburton; and Earnie Broughton, MBA Program Director, Bill Greehey School of Business, St. Mary’s University

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: bprachar@CSLG.com, susan.ponce@halliburton.com, ebroughton@stmarytx.edu
Sent: 9/4/2011 4:00:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Earning a Seat at the Table: Navigating the Perilous Waters of Organizational Power and Politics"
Dear Mr. Prachar, Ms. Ponce, and Mr. Broughton,
I hope you have some good ideas to present at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month for how ethics and compliance officers can gain a seat at the table.
I frankly think there are obstacles that will be extremely difficult to overcome.
I suggest those obstacles can be usefully explored if you think about the important question of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing, and whether corporate management, on the one hand, and ethics and compliance officers, on the other, are likely, in the end, to have differing views about the same.
I believe this is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, other parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the foregoing parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I don't know if you wish to parse through the factors and considerations here that bear on the matter of "earning a seat at the table.". I hope you will attempt the exercise.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"When It Gets Personal: Advice to In-house Counsel on Avoiding Criminal and Civil Liability"
Z. Scott, Partner, Kaye Scholer LLP; and Patricia BrownHolmes, Partner, Schiff Hardin LLP

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: z.scott@kayescholer.com, pholmes@schiffhardin.com
Sent: 9/5/2011 9:36:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "When It Gets Personal: Advice to In-house Counsel on Avoiding Criminal and Civil Liability"
Dear Mr. Scott and Ms. Holmes,
The above title of your presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month is suggestive that personal liability has a special potency in getting a corporate actor's attention and in guiding that actor's conduct.
I agree with that. I also believe that ethics and compliance professionals have generally not given adequate consideration to the matter of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous other parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
Inasmuch as your ECOA conference topic specifically calls attention to the special potency of personal liability regarding in-house counsel, I hope you also entertain thoughts of the significance of the same relative to all corporate actors and deterring corporate wrongdoing.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"From Values to Compliance: Bridging the Gap,or a Bridge Too Far?"
LeeAnn Pelham, former Executive Director, Los Angeles City Ethics Commission

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: ethics.commission@lacity.org
Sent: 9/5/2011 10:01:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Please forward to LeeAnn Pelham
[To the Ethics Commission: I know Ms. Pelham is the former Executive Director and may no longer have any connection with the Commission. I cannot find an email address for Ms Pelham, and thus I am sending this email with the request that it be forwarded to Ms. Pelham. If the Commission is not in a position to do that, I will understand. Thank you. Rob Shattuck]
Email message for LeeAnn Pelham
Subj: "From Values to Compliance: Bridging the Gap, or a Bridge Too Far?"
Dear Ms. Pelham,
I would like to call attention to a big hole that I think exists relative to trying to bridge the gap that is referred to by your above presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month.
This hole is that I believe that ethics and compliance professionals have not given adequate consideration to the matter of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous other parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about the foregoing "hole" in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Next-generation Governance: Integrating the Parts...Seeing Things Whole"
William Bojan, Founder and CEO, Integrated Governance Solutions

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: info@integratedgovernance.com
Sent: 9/9/2011 8:02:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Mr. William Bojan
Subj: "Next-generation Governance: Integrating the Parts...Seeing Things Whole"
Dear Mr. Bojan,
I am interested in what your ideas about "next-generation governance" are that you will present in your above speech at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference..
In terms of "integrating the parts" and "seeing things whole," I would be particularly interested in what you think about the "part" that consists of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about this "part" of corporate governance in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Aligning Policy Management with Your Ethics and Compliance Program"
Doris Balderrama, Director, Business Ethics and Compliance, Starbucks Coffee Company; Neil Moir, Manager, Business Ethics and Compliance, Starbucks Coffee Company; and Barbara Moretti, Internal Policy Manager, Business Ethics and Compliance, StarbucksCoffee Company

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: businessconduct@starbucks.com
Sent: 9/9/2011 9:22:14 A.M. Central Daylight TimeSubj: For Ms. Balderrama, Mr. Moir, and Ms. Moretti
Subj: "Aligning Policy Management with Your Ethics and Compliance Program"
Dear Ms. Balderrama, Mr. Moir, and Ms. Moretti,
I am a little unclear about what "policy management" (whose policy? whose management?) is being referred to in your above presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month.
I wish to suggest that corporate management is not aligned with an ethics and compliance program in one extremely important respect.
This is regarding the matter of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing, and whether corporate management, on the one hand, and ethics and compliance officers, on the other, are likely, in the end, to have differing views about the same.
I believe this is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, other parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the foregoing parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will discuss in your ECOA speech whether there is non-alignment between corporate management and an ethics and compliance program in the foregoing regard.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"What Difference Does Your Program Make?"
Skip Lowney, Senior Project Manager, Ethics Resource Center; and Matt Robbins, Project Manager and Researcher, Ethics Resource Center

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: ethics@ethics.org
Sent: 9/10/2011 7:39:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Mr. Lowney and Mr. Robbins
Subj: "What Difference Does Your Program Make?"
Dear Mr. Lowney and Mr. Robbins,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I offer the following for your consideration as a factor relative to an ethics and compliance program making a difference.
Please consider whether entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing is a factor concerning the difference that an ethics and compliance program can make..
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My further belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about this factor in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Operationalizing Your Ethics and Compliance Framework: Making Compliance Standards Standard Practice"
J.P. Shotwell, Director and Deputy Ethics & Compliance Officer, Southern California Edison Company; and Lupe Clapp, Manager, Executive Compensation & HR Compliance, Southern California Edison Company

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: j.p.shotwell@SCE.com
Sent: 9/10/2011 7:59:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Operationalizing Your Ethics and Compliance Framework: Making Compliance Standards  Standard Practice"
Dear Mr. Shotwell,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you what difference you think entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing has in the operationalizing of an ethics and compliance framework and making compliance standards standard practice.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about this matter in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Program Planning and Evaluation: Risk Assessment at Its Best"
Jacqueline E. Brevard, Retired Vice President and ChiefEthics Officer, Merck & Co., Inc.; Trav Ichinose, Principal,Ichinose & Associates; and Bob Olson, Director, MemberServices and Education, ECOA

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Jacqueline_Brevard@merck.com, bolson@theecoa.org
Sent: 9/10/2011 9:00:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Program Planning and Evaluation: Risk Assessment at Its Best"
Dear Ms. Brevard, Mr. Ichinose, and Mr. Olson (I don't have email address for Mr. Ichinose),
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you what relevance you think entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing has in ethics and compliance program planning and risk assessment. .
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about this matter in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Program Evolution and Improvement: The Intersection of Theory and Practice"
Andrea Falcione, Vice President, Advisory Services andChief Ethics Officer, SAI Global, Ltd.; Colin Campbell,Global Head GRC Product Management, SAI Global, Ltd.;and David Karas, Vice President, Ethics and BusinessConduct, Hitachi Data Systems

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: info.americas@saiglobal.com, info@hds.com
Sent: 9/10/2011 9:42:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Andrea Falcione and Colin Campbell (SAI) and David Karas (Hitachi)
Subj: "Program Evolution and Improvement: The Intersection of Theory and Practice"
Dear Ms. Falcione and Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Karas,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you whether ethics and compliance programs could be improved if the law provided for more individual officer and employee liability (as opposed to entity level liability) as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope you will talk about this matter in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"The Dodd-Frank Act: Update on Whistleblowing and Anti-Retaliation"
Bradley L. Ottinger, of Counsel, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC; and Rob DelPriore, Shareholder, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: bottinger@bakerdonelson.com, rdelpriore@bakerdonelson.com
Sent: 9/10/2011 11:28:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "The Dodd-Frank Act: Update on Whistleblowing and Anti-Retaliation"
Dear Mr. Ottinger and Mr. DelPriore,
I am writing you relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference,
Whistleblowing is highly contentious as a tool to deter corporate wrongdoing. The SEC's proposed regulations under Dodd-Frank received hundreds of comments, many concerning whether a whistleblower should be allowed to bypass a corporation's internal compliance programs. (http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-33-10/s73310.shtml). Many commenters on behalf of corporate management, and also ethics and compliance professionals, were opposed to the SEC allowing whistleblowers to bypass the corporation's internal compliance programs.
I too submitted a comment to the SEC (http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-33-10/s73310-252.htm). In my comment, I made the following basic contention:
It is submitted that (i) in dealing with corporate wrongdoing, the law is unacceptably deficient from a deterrence standpoint in the way the law fails to punish officers, employees and other individuals who participate in and are responsible for the design, implementation, and carrying out of corporate acts that comprise corporate wrongdoing, (ii) the law is mistaken in its willingness to assume punishment of a corporation can achieve adequate deterrence, and (iii) the law fosters a mindset and a willingness of some persons to take advantage of the foregoing deficiencies and to benefit from them at the expense of innocent parties, such as shareholders . Until these deficiencies are addressed by lawmakers, regulators, judges and others, there will be similar deficiencies connected with the whistleblower program, the program will fall short in achieving deterrent objectives, and the program will be at risk of being unduly exploited for personal gain and benefit in a fashion similar to that referred to in the preceding sentence.
Accordingly, lawmakers, regulators and others should first correct the foregoing deficiencies in the law before the proposed whistleblower program is put in place.
The subject of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing is a complex subject that, similar to whistleblowing, entails countervailing considerations. The numerous parties who have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations, may have very differing views on the subject..
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing..
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Reflections of an Ethics and Compliance Officer, Still Learning After All These Years"
Jeff Benjamin, Vice President, General Counsel Litigation, Chair, Ethics & Compliance Audit Committee, Novartis AG

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: corporatecitizenship@novartis.com
Sent: 9/17/2011 4:33:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Mr. Jeff Benjamin, Chair, Ethics & Compliance Committee
Re: "Reflections of an Ethics and Compliance Officer, Still Learning After All These Years"
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask what you have learned after all these years about entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope in your ECOA speech you will talk about what you have learned about this subject.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck



"Cleaning House on Policies and Procedures: Building a System for Enabling Compliance"
Janaize Markland, Compliance & Ethics Manager, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: invrel@pge-corp.com
Sent: 9/17/2011 4:48:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Ms. Janaize Markland, Compliance & Ethics Manager
Re: "Cleaning House on Policies and Procedures: Building a System for Enabling Compliance"
Dear Ms. Markland,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask, for purposes of building a system of enabling compliance, whether consideration needs to be given to entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing and obtaining compliance.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope in your ECOA speech you will talk about this subject.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Learnings from a Dialogue on Business Ethics between Today’s Experts and Tomorrow’s Business Leaders"
John O’Byrne, Director, Manhattanville College Center for Ethics; and Deborah Haraldson, Ethics Counsel, MasterCard Worldwide

[Form of email to Mr. O'Byrne and Ms. Haraldson]
Re: "Learnings from a Dialogue on Business Ethics between Today’s Experts and Tomorrow’s Business Leaders"
Dear___________,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to call your attention to this project I have initiated that seeks to foster dialogue between ethics experts and business leaders on the subject of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope in your ECOA speech you will mention my project.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"New Research in Ethics & Compliance: Academicians Weigh In on Effectiveness"
John Dienhart, Professor, Seattle University; and Scott Reynolds, Associate Professor of Business Ethics, Helen Moore Gerhardt Faculty Fellow, Foster School of Business, University of Washington

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: dienharj@seattleu.edu, heyscott@u.washington.edu
Sent: 9/17/2011 5:51:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "New Research in Ethics & Compliance: Academicians Weigh In on Effectiveness"
Dear Professors Dienhart and Reynolds,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you what new research there is on the effectiveness of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope in your ECOA speech you report on any new research on the subject.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Decisions, Decisions: Which Ethical Decision Model Works for Me?"
Roz Bliss, Corporate Administrator for Ethics and Business Conduct, Northrop Grumman Corporation

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: courtney.wallize@ngc.com
Sent: 9/18/2011 9:21:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For Roz Bliss, Corporate Administrator for Ethics and Business Conduct
[Ms. Wallize, I cannot find an email address for Ms. Roz Bliss. Would you mind forwarding this email to her or providing me with her email address? Thank you.]
Re: "Decisions, Decisions: Which Ethical Decision Model Works for Me?"
Dear Ms. Bliss,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask whether the existence of external sanctions has a role in your "ethical decision model," and, if so, whether it makes a difference in the model whether the sanctions are in the form of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability.
Entity versus individual level liability is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope, if the existence of sanctions has a role in your ethical decision model, you will discuss entity level versus individual level sanctions in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Knowing Your Weak Spots: AssessingLevels of Business Integrity throughout Your
Organization"
Dr. Nicole Dando, Head of Projects, Institute of Business Ethics; and Simon Webley, Research Director, Institute of Business Ethics

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: info@ibe.org.uk
Sent: 9/18/2011 9:40:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Please forward to Dr. Nicole Dando and Mr. Simon Webley
Re: "Knowing Your Weak Spots: Assessing Levels of Business Integrity throughout Your Organization"
Dear Dr. Dando and Mr. Webley,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you whether a factor that may contribute to a "weak spot" is whether there is entity level liability or individual officer and employee liability for the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing.
This is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope in your ECOA speech you will discuss whether a factor that may contribute to a "weak spot" is whether there is entity level or individual liability.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Built to Last: Developing a Best-in-Class Code of Conduct"
Maurice Crescenzi, Jr., Global Compliance and Ethics Officer, DeVry, Inc.; and Robert W. Sprague, President & CEO, PCI Communications, Inc.

Re: "Built to Last: Developing a Best-in-Class Code of Conduct"
Dear [Mr. Crescenz][Mr. Sprague]i,
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask whether there needs to be external sanctions to provide support for a "Best-in-Class Code of Conduct" and, if so, whether it makes a difference whether the sanctions are in the form of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability.
Entity versus individual level liability is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope, if external sanctions are needed to support a "Best-in-Class Code of Conduct," you will discuss entity level versus individual level sanctions in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


"Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It"
Max Bazerman, Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School; and Ann Tenbrunsel, Rex and Alice A. Martin Professor of Business Ethics & Co-director, Institute for Ethical Business Worldwide, University of Notre Dame

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: mbazerman@hbs.edu, Ann.E.Tenbrunsel.1@nd.edu
Sent: 9/18/2011 10:53:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: "Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It"
Dear Professors Bazerman and Tenbrunsel,Publish Post
Relative to your above upcoming presentation at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference, I would like to ask you whether the existence of external sanctions contributes to avoiding "blind spots" and doing what's right, and, if so, whether it makes a difference whether the sanctions are in the form of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability.
Entity versus individual level liability is a complex subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations. Also, numerous parties have or should have an interest in the matter, such as lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.
My belief is that the interested parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.
To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.
I hope, if external sanctions contribute to avoiding "blind spots" and doing what's right, you will discuss entity level versus individual level sanctions in your ECOA speech.
Not having credentials or formal position in the business ethics field, I have difficulty in getting response to things I say. In the circumstances, I post emails I send in a blog I have in order to create a record by which what I say can be judged. After I send this email, I will post the email here.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Thursday, September 1, 2011

ECOA featured speakers


[Below letter was sent to Gretchen Morgenson, Paula Reynolds and Cheryl Scarboro, featured speakers at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference to be held at the end of September]

Re:  Your AECC presentation

Dear Ms. __________,


I am a citizen activist in the business ethics field. I am contacting you by reason of your featured prominence at the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association annual conference later this month.


I am interested in your views about entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability as means for deterring corporate wrongdoing.

I think this is a difficult subject that likely entails significant countervailing considerations.

Many parties have or should have an interest in the matter, including lawmakers, judges, regulators, state attorneys general, criminal prosecutors, corporate management, ethics and compliance officers, various academics, plaintiffs' lawyers, and consumer protection organizations.

My belief is that the foregoing parties have done an inadequate job in formulating their views on the subject and in communicating with one another about the same.

To try to contribute to remedying this believed deficiency, I have initiated this project to investigate the perspectives, views, analyses, and information the multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I hope you consider the subject worthy of your consideration and that you will have the opportunity to discuss the same with ethics and compliance professionals whom you encounter at the ECOA annual conference.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck