R&C: In your opinion, why it is advisable for companies to localise their global compliance programmes?

Cunningham: Our experience with multinational companies and the current enforcement environment counsels that it is now more important than ever for global compliance programmes to be effectively localised. Recent years have seen a noticeable increase in non-US anti-corruption enforcement, for example, as well as the emergence of more aggressive cross-border cooperation and information sharing, leading to multi-country government investigations. In many situations, conduct that violates the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) may also run afoul of the laws or regulations of the country in which it occurred and other non-US countries with the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the entity. In addition, non-US authorities can now be expected, in many instances, to pursue enforcement actions. Therefore, enforcement actions involving cross-border cooperation resulting in the payment of financial penalties to multiple jurisdictions are more prevalent.

Lucy: A global entity must have a dual-focus compliance programme. On one hand, the programme must identify compliance points in the different jurisdictions in which the company operates, as well as the local regulations in which it is required to implement its programme. Companies should devise training sessions and identify those employees who, by their functions, have points of contact in risk areas, because for them it will be necessary to provide specialised and recurring training. In order to get a better response to implementation, companies should include practical examples in their training programmes, such as relevant local situations and customs, and whether they are compatible with the company’s larger global compliance programme.

Jan-Mar 2018 Issue

Baker McKenzie LLP

Fondo de Fondos

NuVasive, Inc.

Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie