What do ethics organizations think?

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: KDarcy@theecoa.org, pat@ethics.org, roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org
Sent: 11/2/2013 11:21:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Admitting corporate wrongdoing
Dear Mr. Darcy, Dr. Harned, and Mr. Snell,
The question of whether corporations should be required to admit wrongdoing, or not, had a lot of publicity over the summer related to the SEC possibly changing its practice of "no admit" settlements and related to the views of the new SEC commissioner Mary Jo White. Russell Ryan published a second op/ed piece in The Wall Street Journal in September (which I have copied and pasted in my blog here), and Bloomberg Business Week just two weeks ago had this article, entitled "Mary Jo White Is the Woman Who Makes Wall Street Admit Guilt"
I have the following questions for you as the respective directors of the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association, the Ethics Resource Center, and the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (which questions should not surprise you):
1. Do you consider the matter of corporations admitting, or avoiding admission of, wrongdoing as having any bearing on making corporations more ethical and more compliant with the law (which your respective organizations have missions to promote)?
2. If your answer to question 1 is yes, does your organization have any ongoing activity concerning the matter, such as investigating, researching, evaluating and formulating positions on the matter, and/or publicizing the same for the benefit of your members? If so, has anything in writing been produced that you can provide to me, and/or can you give me contact information for persons in or connected with your organizations who are individually active in such ongoing activity of your organization (for purposes of my communicating with such persons)?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org, paul.mcnulty@bakermckenzie.com, patrick.gnazzo@gmail.com, mdoyle@aegis-compliance.com, corporate.ethics@lmco.com, jemurphy@voicenet.com
CC: rryan@kslaw.com
Sent: 6/3/2013 2:30:58 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: 5/21/13 WSJ op/ed piece "Why the SEC Needs 'No-Admit' Settlements"
Via email to above addressees  
Via U.S. Mail to below persons 
Mr. Denis McInerney
Chief, Fraud Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Mr. Stephen L. Cohen
Associate Director, Division of Enforcement
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549 
Re: SCCE Government Compliance Conference June 10, 2013 
Dear Government Compliance Conference speakers,
In follow up to my prior emails to you, it seems appropriate to mention Russell G. Ryan's op/ed piece "Why the SEC Needs 'No-Admit' Settlements," which appeared in the May 21/22 Wall Street Journal (and which I have copied and pasted in my blog here).
The ongoing issue of whether or not society's formal legal machinery will or will not yield unambiguous determinations of what constitutes or does not constitute wrongdoing by corporations should, it seems to me, be troublesome for those in the business ethics and compliance domain. If the formal legal machinery does not make those determinations, what basis does there exist for agreement about what actions by officers and employees of the corporation are wrongful and are not to be engaged in?
Further, if the formal legal machinery does not yield determinations that something is wrongful, how does that affect, for example, the imposition by corporations of "discipline" on individual officers and employees under Sec. 8B2.1(b)(6) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations?
I do not expect to attend the June 10 conference, and I renew my solicitation that, if there is anything you will say in your presentations at the conference that address these matters I have been emailing you about (the subject of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing, and whether the formal legal machinery makes unambiguous determinations about what constitutes or does not constitute corporate wrongdoing), I would very much like to publish the same in my blog. If you are willing, please send me a transcript of what I might publish. 
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

 From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org, paul.mcnulty@bakermckenzie.com, patrick.gnazzo@gmail.com, mdoyle@aegis-compliance.com, corporate.ethics@lmco.com
Sent: 5/2/2013 7:21:59 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: SCCE Government Compliance Conference June 10, 2013
Via email to above addressees
Via U.S. Mail to below persons
Mr. Denis McInerney
Chief, Fraud Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Mr. Stephen L. Cohen 
Associate Director, Division of Enforcement 
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
Re: SCCE Government Compliance Conference June 10, 2013
Dear Government Compliance Conference speakers,
In February I emailed (or mailed) you concerning your upcoming conference, which communications are set out in my blog at http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2013/02/scce-government-compliance-conference.html. I very much appreciate the reply that Joe Murphy gave to me, but I did not hear from anyone else. I do not expect to attend the conference. If there is anything you will say in your presentations at the conference that address the subject of entity level liability versus individual officer and employee liability for purposes of deterringr corporate wrongdoing, I would very much like to publish the same in my blog. If you are willing, please send me a transcript of what I might publish.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL


From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: pat@ethics.org
Sent: 5/18/2013 5:44:21 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Citigroup- Former Judge Phillips' declaration- deterrence
Dear Dr. Harned,
Thank you very, very much for replying to me.
As I think you know, I have been trying to agitate about "discipline" under FSGO Sec. 8B2.1(b)(6), including, recently, in emails to the speakers at the upcoming SCCE Government Compliance Conference (per this blog entry).  
It would seem to me that investigation and research by the ERC about the actual use of such discipline by corporations, and its effectiveness (or problems), in "advanc[ing] high ethical standards and practices" in corporations, would be well within the purview of the ERC's mission.
If the ERC should initiate any project in that vein (or any other project which my blog manifests that I would have an interest in), I would be very pleased to make a contribution to the same however I can.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

 In a message dated 4/1/2013 3:01:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, pat@ethics.org writes:

Dear Rob, 

Thank you for your efforts to keep the Ethics Resource Center apprised of your communications regarding various corporate compliance matters.   

As you may recall from previous communications with our staff, ERC is a nonprofit research organization.  Our mission is to conduct independent research to advance high ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions.  While we do occasionally develop reports to share the findings of our research with policymakers and federal enforcement officials, it is not the mission of our center to become involved in legal matters regarding any specific organization.  In this instance, it is beyond the mission and expertise for the ERC to comment on the Citigroup case.   

Again, thank you for your email.   

Kind regards, 

Pat 

Patricia J. Harned, Ph.D., President

Ethics Resource Center

From: RDShatt@aol.com [mailto:RDShatt@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:00 AM
To: Pat Harned
Subject: Citigroup- Former Judge Phillips' declaration- deterrence

To ethics and compliance community:

In the pending Citigroup Securities Litigation, former United States District Court Judge Layn R. Phillips submitted to the Court this Declaration Regarding Approval Of Settlement.  I sent an email to Mr. Phillips inquiring of him whether the parties made argument to him about whether the lawsuit had a deterrence value. Mr. Phillips replied that I should serve my email on the parties to give them an opportunity to comment, and then Mr. Phillips would respond. For further information about this, go here.

I hope those in the ethics and compliance community whom I have been importuning will take interest in what the parties in the Citigroup case have to say about deterrence and what Mr Phillips says in response.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck