Tag: regulation

Categories
Trends in business compliance

Round-up on CFTC compliance

This is the first in a series of seven posts about regulatory compliance priorities and enforcement trends.  Today’s post will be about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).  On Thursday December 28, the post will be about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  On Thursday January 4, the post will be about the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).  On Thursday January 11, the post will be about the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).  On Thursday January 18, the post will be about the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  On Thursday January 25, the post will be about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Finally, on Thursday February 1, the post will be about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the US regulator charged with supervisory authority over the futures and option markets. Created in 1974 by the Commodities Futures Trading Act, the CFTC is an independent regulatory agency with the purpose to monitor and protect the markets by prohibiting fraudulent activity or other misconduct and to control against risk from these. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the markets reforms which were implemented during the economic recovery, the CFTC has played a more prominent role in the largely unregulated general derivatives (contracts that derive their value from the performance of an underlying entity, such as an asset, index, or interest rate) and specifically, swaps (derivative contracts where two counterparties exchange cash flows of each other’s financial instruments) markets, to encourage transparency and gradually move toward a more stringent supervisory framework.

The CFTC’s principal mission is to ensure the successful and efficient operations of the futures markets, by keeping competition fair and preventing market abuse or other threats to financial integrity and efficacy. As the futures markets and particularly the derivatives and swaps markets are very international, the CFTC collaborates heavily with international partners and oversees a huge variety of diverse financial institutions and service providers, including exchanges, clearing houses, dealers, and commodity pool operators.

The CFTC has often been seen as the smaller, less powerful or prominent cousin agency to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, as the CFTC refines its position within the financial regulatory landscape of the global markets and within the US economy, certain issues and emphases have emerged which distinguish the CFTC.

  • Bitcoin: The CFTC made headlines in November 2017 in paving the way for CME Group and Cboe Global Markets Inc to trade bitcoin futures contracts. Investors and markets professionals all over the world have been waiting for the first regulatory verdicts in the US on how cryptocurrencies markets may be handled. The CFTC has answered this boldly, indicating a permissive attitude toward the trading practices coupled with a strict expectation for robust monitoring and reporting to enable oversight of the famously volatile and active bitcoin trading markets. The CFTC had already declared in 2015 that it would treat bitcoin as a commodity, and the ensuing years have shown US financial regulators struggling to agree on what the cryptocurrency is in terms of financial markets and what risks and protections might be applicable for those wishing to invest or speculate in it. The CFTC has chosen to give the futures trading a yellow light, allowing it to go ahead with a cautious eye toward the intense enforcement and investor protection needs that could arise and obtaining assurances from the exchanges that they will proactively cooperate and share the necessary data with the CFTC: Bitcoin Futures Are Coming and Regulators Are Racing to Catch Up
  • Whistleblowers: While far outpaced by the SEC’s much more well-known and publicized whistleblower program, the CFTC’s program was created at the same time as the SEC’s, by the post-financial crisis Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. In 2017, while still modest in comparison to the SEC, the CFTC is having a banner year for payments of whistleblower rewards. These rewards come from sanctions imposed by the CFTC due to validated whistleblower claims against CFTC-covered organizations. This represents a reporting increase by whistleblowers to the CFTC of 70 percent over 2016, indicating that whistleblowers are recognizing the value of the CFTC as an enforcement body. Therefore this uptrend in handling of whistleblower claims could likely continue: Why Wall Street Should Worry About the CFTC Whistleblower Program
  • Deregulation: The overall trend in the US is toward a preference for fewer or more efficient and targeted regulations. This is a clear reversal especially in the financial markets, where in the years after the global financial crisis the momentum was toward more complex and far-reaching regulatory and supervisory oversight on the economy and market participants. This was a reasonable and necessary response to not only the recession but the numerous and varied financial scandals and frauds that were uncovered and damaged the markets and society’s trust in the financial systems. These risks and root causes of misconduct and abuse are still present, so balancing a regulatory posture which prefers a lighter touch against the need for investor protector and facilitation of transparent and equitable markets is a challenge for all regulatory agencies, including the CFTC: CFTC Enforcement Actions Drop Sharply in 2017
  • MiFID II: The revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or MiFID II, is a wide-sweeping set of EU financial regulatory rules coming into effect in January 2018. These new regulations will have huge impact on the way banks and other financial institutions interact with and make money from the markets. While these are European laws, the globality of the markets means that regulators and market participants all over the world are contending with how to handle these new supervisory guidelines. The Futures Industry Association (FIA) has been actively lobbying the CFTC on behalf of its members, including large banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to confirm that the new European requirements will not bring expensive new limitations in the US as well: Wall Street Has New MiFID Migraine, Now in Futures Market
    In continuation of this, one important area in which the CFTC has already been deal-making with the EU in anticipation of the approaching MiFID II application is with derivatives trading venues. The European Commission and the CFTC have agreed upon mutual recognition of trading venues so that those in the United States can benefit from an equivalence decision recognizing them as eligible for compliance with MiFID II requirements by virtue of their satisfaction of CFTC requirements: EU and CFTC Implement Mutual Recognition of Derivatives Trading Venues
  • Blockchain: Apart from regulating bitcoin as a commodity, the CFTC hopes to benefit from the technology that underlies cryptocurrencies, blockchain. The CFTC has voluminous amounts of data from the diverse market platofrms and service providers that it supervises and has historically struggled to parse and study these huge troves of data efficiently and meaningfully. The CFTC hopes that the reporting reliability, transparency, and information security offered by the ledger technology blockchain can enable better review and analysis of this data. Traditional procurement requirements have often dogged attempts to implement more advanced or emerging technologies, but one of the priorities of the CFTC and other US government agencies currently is to leverage innovation such as from financial technology (fintech), regulatory technology (regtech), and supervisory technology (suptech): CFTC Looks to Blockchain to Transform How It Monitors Markets

Be sure to check back next week for a round-up on FTC regulatory compliance.

Categories
Administrative

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving from Compliance Culture!

In honor of the holiday, check out this article from Wired on the regulatory history of turkey in the United States:  Why It’s So Tough to Keep Antibiotics Out of Your Turkey.

Categories
Trends in business compliance

Compliance issues with marijuana legalization

Marijuana has a complex legal and regulatory history in the United States. Originally widely deployed in a variety of medical and commercial uses, the regulation and eventual restriction of commonly-accepted preparations of hemp and cannabis began at the turn of 20th century with labelling requirements and a push to include cannabis in the definition of a “poison” for which a prescription would be required. By the 1930s a patchwork of state and national policies in law were in place and the criminalization of marijuana was underway in earnest. For the next 40 years any attempt at decriminalization or reclassification was unsuccessful. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, California began to slowly reduce penalties for possession under state law and work toward legalization for compassionate use in chronically-ill individuals, which became legal in the state in 1996.

Since then, the legalization of marijuana has been a matter of legislative interest in many states. This move toward decriminalization at first was limited to the medical use first legitimized in California state law, either for chronically-ill patients or for those suffering from a variety of illnesses for which marijuana has proven to be a desirable treatment in terms of effectiveness and cost. Advocacy in this area has eventually extended to non-medical use; in 2012, Colorado was the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults.

As of the writing of this post, medical marijuana is legal (to at least some extent) in 23 states plus the District of Columbia; in 8 states medical and non-medical marijuana is legal to sell and possess. As the below selection will show, momentum for decriminalization and handling of emerging legal markets invokes a wide variety of compliance issues which will need to be addresses for business and consumer protections and obligations.

  • Given that medical marijuana was the initial purpose behind modern legalization and that it continues to be the most widely-accepted rationale for it, it follows quite logically that medical marijuana research would need to be recognized and facilitated by the law as well. Senator Orrin Hatch, a perhaps unexpected ally for legalization, introduced the Marijuana Effective Drug Study Act of 2017 to improve the research approval process and increase the national marijuana quota to provide supply for medical and scientific research into its potential health benefits. Because marijuana is still completely illegal at the federal level, it is subject to the most restrictive classification and therefore getting approval to study it or supply of it to study is very difficult. In order for the full efficacy of marijuana as medical and therapeutic treatment to be understood, these administrative burdens must be overcome: Senator introduces bill to make it easier to do medical marijuana research
  • Due to the fact that, as stated above, marijuana is still totally criminalized at the federal level, and state efforts toward legalization vary widely, regulatory expectations are widespread across a cumbersome patchwork. Businesses hoping to join or exploit the marijuana market in states where it is legalized to some extent will confront a huge regulatory burden of rules, reporting and disclosure obligations, and licensure requirements. It will be crucial for existing or new owners of marijuana-based businesses to consider implementing compliance programs early and thoroughly so that they are not caught unaware by government expectations in their jurisdictions. Otherwise, a culture of operational non-compliance will reign, which could have devastating effect on business success rates amid supervisory enforcement actions for deficiencies: Marijuana Businesses, Particularly In California, Struggle To Navigate A Thicket Of Regulations
  • Public sentiment is certainly trending toward legalization. Sixty-four percent of Americans now say that its use should be made legal, which is the highest level of public support that the pollster Gallup has found in the fifty years it has been recording this measure. Certainly high-profile ballot initiatives in a variety of states and increased media attention have come through to the average American and liberalized views on the matter. How will this impact regulatory outlooks? If the federal government comes around to legalization then some universal standard for controls framework and supervisory requirements may be in the future. If not, states will continue to be left to their own devices to create independent markets and risk controls within them:  Record-High Support for Legalizing Marijuana Use in U.S.
  • As the market for legal weed emerges, powerful people wanting to work within are starting to act like they would in any other industry – looking to garner competitive advantage and turn their companies into giants of the marijuana business. Marijuana is a valuable industry and can be seen as a crop, which means it has an agricultural supply chain like wheat or corn that can be exploited. Utility patents, intellectual property protection for crops, can be used by powerful organizations to corner the market on breeding of new varieties, conducting research, and even producing seeds to be licensed: The Great Pot Monopoly Mystery
  • With governments addressing legalization of marijuana all across the United States, organizations are beginning to weigh in too on what their policies of use by their members and employees may be. One visible example of this is with the National Basketball League (NBA) where both the former commissioner David Stern and the current commissioner Adam Silver have expressed at least awareness that the league policies may eventually have to change. While marijuana is still a prohibited substance in the NBA irrespective of the purpose of use, Silver has said he wants to study it and Stern has opined that he feels players should be allowed to do what is legal in their states with respect to marijuana use:  David Stern calls for NBA changes of marijuana rules

As states continue to move toward decriminalizing or outright legalization for marijuana for a variety of purposes, and other organizations contend with their own policies within that system, mechanisms for regulated markets will begin to emerge, presenting interesting regulatory compliance issues with no clear and easy precedent. Governments and businesses alike will need to contend with both the opportunities and the challenges this will present.

Categories
Administrative

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween from Compliance Culture!

In honor of the holiday, check out this round-up from American Banker on the scary regulatory outlook for the banking sector:  Here’s what bankers are fearing this Halloween season.

Categories
Compliance and ethics business case studies

Compliance considerations in an active era of mergers and acquisitions

The term “mergers and acquisitions” describes transactions in which the ownership of organizations or business operations within organizations are combined or transferred between companies. Merger describes the combination of at least two organizational units, whereas acquisition describes the transfer of interests or assets from one organization to another.

So far 2017 has been a banner year for high-profile mergers and acquisitions across all industries. Businesses are generating attention, press, and perhaps even revenue for themselves by ambitiously entering into deals with one another. Some prominent competitors have decided to join forces, while other companies hope to make inroads into new markets or gain access to new technologies through mergers and acquisitions activity.

  • The Amazon/Whole Foods merger has been one of the hottest topics of late summer 2017. Already the deal has had a seismic effect on the market, causing competitors from European grocery retailers to ready-to-eat meal delivery companies to major retailers such as Wal-Mart to recalibrate their own corporate strategies and expansion plans. One of the focal points of the lively conversation around this transaction has been the speed with which the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gave its blessing. While some professional skepticism from lawmakers on this subject is certainly welcome, the proof will be the pudding as to whether the deal encourages innovation in the sector by challenging competitors to respond creatively to the merger. If this does indeed pan out, perhaps consumers will stand to benefit, not to be harmed, by this type of deal:  Consumers the big winners of Amazon-Whole Foods merger
  • In the UK, a different regulator is not in such a rush to approve the merger between 21st Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch, and broadcaster Sky. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will perform a six month review of that one on the referral of the Culture Minister Karen Bradley. The stated reasons for the review were concerns about media plurality, stemming from the material influence Rupert Murdoch would gain over news providers in the UK key market plaforms, and an inadequate compliance program at Fox, which already owns a 39 percent stake in Sky:  UK competition commission to review Fox-Sky merger
  • Mergers can complicate outstanding or future legal claims, as the union between chemical industry giants Dow Chemical and DuPont is indicating. The issue dates back to a major industrial accident in 1984 in India at a factory owned by Union Carbide India. The majority owner of this company was Union Carbide Corporation, which in turn was acquired by Dow in 2001. Victims of the gas leak accident, which killed as many as 22,000 people and left more than 500,000 others injured, have struggled in the last three decades to reach justice through the complicated system of corporate liability. This is a labyrinthine system of liability and procedural quagmires already for victims to make it through, and the acquisition of Union Carbide by Dow made defining liability, both in a legal sense and in a concrete moral sense to attach to an existing corporate entity, very complicated. Already complex enough when dealing with just Dow, now that DuPont will be in the mix, the corporate structures will become even more difficult to navigate legally:  Bhopal disaster victims may never get compensation following Dow-DuPont merger, fears UN official
  • Bayer AG and Monsanto Company are set to face a regulatory review by the EU over at least the next four months in the planned merger by the major agrochemical companies. In that same sector this year, Dow and DuPont as well as China National Chemical and Syngenta AG have faced similar regulatory hurdles and had to make serious sacrifices in order to settle with the EU For their consolidations to go ahead. As companies in one industry seek to merge with each other, the industry comes out reshaped entirely, and the regulator in charge of oversight must step up to ensure the consumers are protected and that innovation continues unchecked despite fewer competitors in the market:  Bayer-Monsanto merger faces in-depth EU probe
  • Similarly, EU regulators have also expressed concern about the merger between Italian eyewear-maker Luxxotica and French lens-maker Essilor. Together the two companies will form a $55.12 billion global eyewear retailer. The EU is concerned because the combined company will be so large, likely crowding out other, smaller retailers that cannot operate on the slim margins workable for major organizations. The regulator is particularly concerned about impact this merger could have on the supply chain, as Essilor will gain access to previously untapped markets in the Americas and Asia:  EU regulators have concerns over Luxottica-Essilor merger

One conclusion that may be drawn already so far from a survey of this year’s mergers and acquisitions activity is for some, that expediency is the name of the game. Companies entering into these agreements want to come together quickly to get on with business, before the advancements in technology outpace their own participation. In some markets, regulators seem basically happy to oblige them. This apparent trend stands somewhat in contrast with standard regulatory agenda for existing companies, and the current preference in other markets, which is to identify and investigate possible anti-trust business practices for possible enforcement action or remedial measures before allowing the deal to go through.

If the US regulators continue to take the point of view that combined and strengthened competition from one market player drives the rest to be better and innovate, such as with Amazon, this will be a justification of relaxed regulatory scrutiny. It will be interesting then to observe whether regulators in the EU or other regions trend in the other direction, increasing the scope and standard of their oversight in order to reinforce their opposite protection that in these times of combination innovation may actually be more at risk than ever.

Only time will tell in this case which side has predicted the outcome correctly; one may find commerce stifled in name of caution, while the other may discover that imposing supervision after the union is more difficult than taking a measured approach from the beginning.

Categories
Trends in business compliance

Round-up on compliance issues in food technology

Food technology, concerning the production processes that manufacture, transport, and distribute foods, continues to expand as disruptive technologies in general advance. As any practice that impacts food has obvious heavy impact on consumer safety, food technology practices are coming under increased scrutiny. While public attention was once mostly limited to risk-benefit analysis of various foods and the resulting consumer preferences and perceptions, innovative technologies are driving further questions and desires for customer protections and process disclosures.

  • In response to perennial consumer demand for more flavorful and interesting plant-based products to present vegetarian and vegan friendly burgers, Impossible Foods created their Impossible Burger, with soy leghemoglobin giving it an uncanny resemblance to meat and a regulatory problem with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration; can high-profile investors and customer interest overcome food safety concerns and the burdens of government supervisory challenges:  Impossible Burger’s ‘Secret Sauce’ Highlights Challenges of Food Tech
  • Walmart and a consortium of major food companies including Unilever and Kroger are experimenting with blockchain technology to simplify and automate their supply chains, in hopes of making a very complex set of production processes much more agile and enabling quicker investigations into outbreaks of food-borne illnesses, with improved documentation:  Walmart and 9 Food Giants Team Up on IBM Blockchain Plans
  • Another fascinating, developing use of blockchain in order to make the supply chain safer by combating food counterfeiting and tampering, illegal shipping, and industry malpractice by tracking products through the process and requiring non-anonymous, reliable documentation, all informed by industry “spying” that has uncovered the causes of abuses across food business sectors and country cultures:  Inside the Secret World of Global Food Spies
  • Personalized nutrition plans combine the trend for home genetic testing with consumer desires for at-home meal delivery or menu selection services, but how does freedom of choice and a culture of individual preference with emphasis on customization fit in with the goals of libertarian paternalism that can be espoused by suggesting biometrically-determined food choices:  I sent in my DNA to get a personalized diet plan. What I discovered disturbs me. 
  • Amazon continues to search for growth opportunities in the food business after announcing plans to acquire Whole Foods earlier this summer, this time turning to U.S. military technology to aim to deliver meals that do not need to be refrigerated, but will consumers be enthusiastic or will this solution only create new potential problems in trademarking of kits and safe fulfillment of orders:  Amazon looks to new food technology for home delivery

Blockchain will likely continue to pose the most challenging and exciting advances in the food technology industry. Making the supply chain for food more transparent and accountable, and also simpler to navigate, is a lofty goal which would serve the public interest. Integrity and consumer choice in the food business, with or without the impact of regulatory supervision, should drive innovation going forward.

Categories
Compliance and ethics business case studies

Theranos and the clash of financing emerging high-tech enterprises and regulatory compliance

The mysterious corporate life of Theranos illustrates many of the challenges that a disruptive business model faces when competitive ambitions take precedence over business foundations. A corporate environment that tolerates, or indeed relies, on a lack of ethical controls develops a culture where misleading and non-compliant conduct becomes the unsustainable norm.

Theranos is a technology company in the health care industry. It has become well-known for its eccentric, charismatic founder Elizabeth Holmes, a precocious and provocative entrepreneur who began developing the blood testing technology Theranos purports to be producing while she was a student at Stanford University. Theranos received tremendous attention from the media, undertaking several successful fundraising rounds and winning prized corporate partnerships and awards for its innovations on the basis of this publicity, all before any of its devices were ever proven effective.

Typical of many high-tech startups, Theranos operated in secrecy, with Holmes acting as its chief evangelist and marketer but speaking always in aspirational terms. Confidentiality, of course, has its place in launching new products to market – especially in the highly competitive and fast-changing technology industry. Beating other firms developing in the same space can make or break disruptive products and the companies that market them. However, these companies and their products have to be real, and an overemphasis on secrecy can also be a red flag for a pervasive fraud.

Unfortunately, all that glitters does not seem to be gold with Theranos. Despite huge valuations and capital raises, the blood testing technology has been criticized for lack of peer-review and has failed to stand up to validation studies. FDA inspection reports necessary before the devices could be sold on the commercial market indicated that the devices were not validated or approved. The media and scientific community turned skeptical of Theranos as time went on, and corporate partners have suspended or cancelled their engagements with the company, which is under criminal investigation by the U.S. government. Laboratories have failed inspections, lost their licenses and certificates to operate, and been closed. A whistleblower came forward regarding design defects in the blood testing technology, leading to a storm of negative publicity and investigations. The future viability of Theranos, and possible liability of Holmes herself for potential wrongdoing, remains uncertain.

Theranos and Holmes, who created a cult of personality around herself which even if briefly convinced the media, investors, the board, and the employees of Theranos to accept her at her word, perfectly illustrate the integrity pitfalls of financing a new company about which the investors are only allowed to know what they are told. Traditional critical review and the studied analysis of outside observers shouldn’t be abandoned in the heat of the venture capital moment due to the persuasion of a person who seems ambitious and charismatic. To do so could be as serious as enabling fraud at the expense of due diligence.

For more insight on the case of Theranos, Nick Bilton’s investigative report for Vanity Fair is an excellent resource.