SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context

Charles Ponzi
Charles Ponzi

In the last six and half years the Securities and Exchange Commission has reached settlements with over 300 defendants in cases related to alleged Ponzi schemes. NERA Consulting has been tracking these SEC settlements since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in July 2002.

In that time frame there have been 12 Ponzi scheme settlements that involved alleged fraud in excess of $50 million. Jan Larsen and Paul Hinton of NERA Consulting put together an overview of those 12 cases and their SEC Settlements: SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context (.pdf).

Based on the settlement amounts shown in this report, things don’t look good for the Madoff investors. The settlement amounts are small, averaging less than 10% of the fraud size. Most of the total settlement amount is tied to the Private Capital Management, Inc. case where $112 million of the $145 was recovered.

nera_table

Thanks to Bruce Carton of Securities Docket for pointing out this report (via Twitter).

Business Codes of The Global 200

kpmg

In drafting and updating my code of conduct and ethics it is always useful to see what other companies are doing. I look for both approach, content and style. For instance, I collected the Whistleblower Hotlines for Home Builders. It is great to see a comparison of a group of compliance codes. KPMG put together a study of the codes of conduct for the Fortune Global 200 companies: Business codes of the Global 200 — their prevalence, content and embedding (.pdf).

A good and properly implemented business code is not just a nice thing to have; it is based on an all-encompassing business need. A business code contributes to an organization’s strategic positioning, to strengthening its identity and reputation, to an improved corporate culture and work climate, and to improved financial performance. A business code and the compliance program to implement it are the cornerstone of an organization.

This whitepaper illustrates some of the results from a study that KPMG conducted with RSM Erasmus University. In 1990 only 14% of the Global 200 had a code of conduct but in 2007 86% of them have a code, including 100% of North American firms.

A few interesting things jumped out at me.

The codes are mostly directed at employees, with less than half discussing corporate responsibility to shareholders. I found this strange since the purpose of the code should be to protect the shareholder’s investment and provide a long-term result for shareholders. It is the focus on the short-term that leads to trouble.

Although 73% of the codes refer to the acceptance of gifts, only 59% refer to the offering of gifts. You would expect a code to address both.  Since both offer the same danger of being viewed as bribery.

See:

Martindale-Hubbell Connected – My Thoughts

mh_connected_banner

I have been a member of the Martindale-Hubbell Connected community for several months. I met John Lipsey, Vice President, Corporate Counsel Services for LexisNexis in September at a speaking engagement on Social Networking for Lawyers. John told the story of why Connected would be a great resource for lawyers.

The lure of Connected is the idea of combining an online networking community, the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer listings, and the enormous pool of data in the Lexis databases. Theoretically, your lawyer listing,  articles, cases, news, and people connections would be all linked together in one place. As with blogging, you could show your expertise through the stuff you write, the cases you work on, the transactions you work on and the news about you. Then you tie that all information to a central profile and connect with the people you know.

That’s a great story. They even put together this snazzy video to prove it:

But so far it is just a story.

The site is merely a social network site with a connection to Martindale-Hubbell  listings. So far there is no connection to the substantive Lexis content. Even the social networking tools are mediocre.

I was told that there are some major upgrades and changes coming soon as they plan to open Connected to a wider audience at the end of March.

To be fair, Connected is not a disaster like the ABA’s LegallyMinded. But, Connected does not have the interesting community of users and content like Legal OnRamp, a similar platform. Connected does not have the large population of users like LinkedIn and Facebook. Connected also lacks many of the rich features of LinkedIn and Facebook.

Part of Connected’s approach is create an authenticated community. So that the person is who they say they are. An interesting approach, but to me it seems like a lot of work for little value. (Perhaps they are scarred by the squatters holding LexisNexis in Twitter.) The authentication seems designed around the Martindale listing. So to start you need to be a lawyer to get. Apparently they are going to open Connected to the larger legal community sometime this summer (according to Kathleen Delaney in the comment to this post).

Frankly, I am not sold on having a gated community for a broad legal community. What would I publish or say in Connected that I would not otherwise say on this blog, Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn? I am an early adopter, so maybe the general legal population would be more likely to contribute in Connected than on one of the public platforms? I am skeptical.

I have not written about Connected because there is not much to write about. It is sparsely populated and lacks content. I am one of the few non-Lexis people doing much with it. (As a curmudgeon, I mostly complain about the lack of features and the stuff that does not work.) They do replicate Compliance Building in Connected (a brilliant decision), but they have had trouble tying the posts to my Connected profile.

Lexis slapped the “beta” label on Connected because they are still working on it. Either they have a lot of work to do, or the site is intended to be mediocre.

See:

UPDATE: I corrected the spelling to “Hubbell.”

Short Bites

Here are a few stories and items that caught my eye, but I have not had time to build-out to a full post:

Reminder to Review Insider Trading Compliance by Melissa Klein Aguilar for Compliance Week

The SEC settled an administrative proceeding this month involving Merrill Lynch based on the firm’s failure to have adequate procedures regarding its “squawk box” to prevent day traders from overhearing and using material non-public information regarding unexecuted institutional orders. That case, along with a 2008 report of an investigation issued last year regarding the Retirement System of Alabama, suggest that “the prudent approach for issuers is to carefully review the adequacy of their procedures for handling inside information,” says Gorman. Those procedures should be carefully tailored to the specific business of the company.

Madoff to Stay Behind Bars Pending Sentencing from the WSJ Law Blog

The Second Circuit earlier Friday affirmed the ruling of the federal district court judge overseeing Madoff’s case, Denny Chin, who had ordered Madoff detained for the months leading up to sentencing, currently slated for June 16. A copy of the Second Circuit’s ruling; A LB post from last week on Madoff and his prison prospects.

Risky Business Did compliance programs fail the test during the financial industry meltdown? by David Hechler for Corporate Counsel

Cox got no argument from his audience of chief compliance officers. But the rest of us may be forgiven for wondering what the compliance officers, and the risk officers, and the ethics officers were doing at the financial services firms when their colleagues were placing those dangerous wagers. Weren’t all those internal controls supposed to protect companies from catastrophe?

Placebo Ethics by Usha Rodrigues and Mike Stegemoller

While there are innumerable theories on the best remedy for the current financial crisis, there is agreement on one point, at least: increased transparency is good. We look at a provision from the last round of financial regulation, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), which imposed disclosure requirements tailored to prevent some of the kinds of abuses that led to the downfall of Enron. In response to Enron’s self-dealing transactions, Section 406 of SOX required a public company to disclose its code of ethics and to disclose immediately any waivers from that code the company grants to its top three executives. These waivers offer a unique window not only into ethical practices at public U.S. companies, but also into how disclosure works “on the ground” -whether companies are actually complying with disclosure rules and whether these rules prevent self-dealing transactions.

Federal Stimulus Bill and TARP Mandate Additional Corporate Governance Requirements by Corporate Compliance Insights

After The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, the Say on Pay provisions for executive compensation received a great deal of coverage and scrutiny from the national media. Certainly, the Say on Pay provision for companies participating in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is one of the most important corporate governance mandates in the Stimulus Bill; but it is far from the only concern for companies receiving government funding.

Internal Audit: The Board’s Agent on the Ground by Mr. David Chiang for Corporate Compliance Insights

As the board chair of a university and a member of several audit and finance committees including that of billion-dollar community not-for-profit organization, I’ve seen first-hand why it’s critical to establish and support an effective internal auditing department. Internal audit needs to comply with industry best practices and develop a strong reporting relationship to the audit committee.

Audit Committee Brief – February 2009 (.pdf) by Deloitte

A recent Deloitte survey found that current market conditions have caused audit committees to change their focus. Today, audit committees are examining liquidity, impairments, enterprise risk management, and financial reporting disclosures more closely.

How to reduce the cost of audits, operations, training and compliance with SharePoint!

These are my notes from a webinar presented by Knowledge Management Associates, Inc. that featured speaker: Sean Megley, KMA SharePoint Architect and resident “compliantist.”

What contributes to the cost of compliance?:

  • Lack of Tools
  • Ad hoc audits
  • Random frameworks
  • Unreliable results

Sean thinks we should free ourselves from the “tyranny of spreadsheets and email!”

The greater the number of people you can get involved in compliance, the better the results. You want it to be easy, you want to get lots of people involved, and you want it to be part of the workflow. He thinks using SharePoint as a central database and portal effectively centralizes the processes and information.

Being in compliance means that you have evidence of compliance. You need a log to prove the steps you have taken.

Sean went through some more theories of compliance and then moved on to display a model SharePoint portal for compliance. The portal also incorporates InfoPath for replicated business processes. The portal logs the forms and data from InfoPath.

Sean used a wiki as a way to communicate, with links to key documents and policies.

Sean notes that the heart of SharePoint is a document repository. You can store documents and wrap information around the documents.

SharePoint has an alert feature built into its lists and libraries. The alert can trigger action based around compliance. SharePoint will let you know when something is changed or added.

SharePoint has key performance indicators (KPIs) to track controls.

Knowledge Management Associates is offering to pre-package the portal with controls and regulatory requirements built-in as a starting point. For example, he has put the text of a regulation and then mapped it to the controls of the company.

Why SharePoint and not Excel? SharePoint takes information in a spreadsheet and exposes it for other people to see and to allow other inputs and logging of changes.

SharePoint can be used for project management. It has a rudimentary Gannt chart tool.

The big question is whether you want to inflict SharePoint on your co-workers and IT staff.  It can be a beast to manage and some of the 2.0 tools barely work.

See:

Model COBRA Subsidy Notices Released

recovery_gov1

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included some relief for laid-off employees. One of the biggest is a 65% subsidy for the payment of health plan payment from the government for certain eligible participants in COBRA health plan continuation coverage. ARRA mandates that health plans notify certain current and former participants and beneficiaries about this premium reduction.

The Department of Labor created and published model notices to help plans comply with these new requirements. Each model notice is designed for a particular group of qualified beneficiaries and contains information to help satisfy ARRA’s notice provisions.

General Notice – Full version (.doc) Plans subject to the Federal COBRA provisions must send the General Notice to all qualified beneficiaries (not just covered employees) who experienced a qualifying event at any time from September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, regardless of the type of qualifying event. This full version includes information on the premium reduction as well as information required in a COBRA election notice.

General Notice – Abbreviated version (.doc)  This version may be sent instead of the full version to individuals who experienced a qualifying event sometime on or after September 1, 2008, have already elected COBRA coverage, and still have it. This abbreviated version of the General Notice includes the same information as the full version regarding the availability of the premium reduction under ARRA, but does not include the COBRA coverage election information.

Alternative Notice (.doc) Insurance issuers that provide group health insurance coverage must send this Alternative Notice to persons who became eligible for continuation coverage under a State law. Continuation coverage requirements vary among States, and issuers should modify this model notice as necessary to conform it to the applicable State law. Issuers may also find the model Alternative Notice or the abbreviated model General Notice appropriate for use in certain situations.

Notice in Connection with Extended Election Periods (.doc) Plans subject to the Federal COBRA provisions must send this Notice to any assistance eligible individual (or any individual who would be an assistance eligible individual if a COBRA continuation election were in effect) who:

1. Had a qualifying event at any time from September 1, 2008 through February 16, 2009; and
2. Either did not elect COBRA continuation coverage, or who elected it but subsequently discontinued COBRA.

This notice includes information on ARRA’s additional election opportunity, as well as premium reduction information. This notice must be provided by April 18, 2009.

Unfortunately, the new information does not provide guidance on the definition of what constitutes an “involuntary termination” for purposes of the new COBRA premium subsidy. I have heard that the IRS is working on this guidance and may make it available in the next two weeks.

See:

Hedge Funds and Fraud: The Future of Due Diligence

Garrity, Graham, Murphy, Garofalo & Flinn and PRMIA (Professional Risk Managers International Association) sponsored a webinar that focused on the signs of fraud and what you can do detect fraud in the context of hedge funds.

The agenda and my notes:

  • The profile of a fraudster (James Tunkey, I-OnAsia)
  • The psychology of the gullible investor (Stephen Greenspan Ph.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado)
  • Current legal and regulatory requirements for hedge funds (Philip Thomas, Esq., Garrity Graham)
  • A hedge fund insider’s view (Samuel Won and Greg Ivancich, Global Risk Management Advisors, Inc.)
  • The regulatory future for hedge funds (Philippa Girling, Esq., FRM, Garrity Graham)

James Tunkey of I-OnAsia, started off with The Profile of a Fraudster. He is a certified fraud examiner. His focus was on the incentives, structures and control systems in an organization.

James put forth the proposition that Fear, Greed, and Honor are the three drivers of fraud. In the context of private investment funds, they are driven by the fear and honor of not making investment targets. There is greed trying to make more money for themselves.

Stephen Greenspan focused on the psychology of the gullible investor. (He has a new book out Annals of Gullibility and an article in the Wall Street Journal: Why We Keep Falling For Financial Scams.) Everybody is capable of being scammed (and probably have been). Stephen has also been scammed. He was a Madoff investor. He breaks a foolish action into three different groups: (1) practically foolish act, (2) non-induced socially foolish action, and (3) induced socially foolish action. It is this induced socially foolish that is gullibility.

Stephen pointed out that investor mania is like a Ponzi scheme. The early investors tell others about how wonderful their investments performed. There is a social feedback loop that drives the mania. The scam artists are skilled manipulators at using these factors.

Phillip Thomas looked at some regulations in place and steps you can take as part of the diligence. He pointed out that in today’ s environment, it is not a good time to be cutting back on compliance.  He led a discussion through some recent court cases to highlight some of the issues.

Disclosure, potentially manipulative practices, and valuation are three hot regulatory topics. There are several rules in place limiting the sale and reconciliation of securities. As for valuation, you should have a segregation of responsibilities and oversight.

Some tools that don’t work very well.

  • The due diligence questionnaire. These are probably canned responsibilities and are unlikely to uncover problems
  • Form ADV. Also have canned answers
  • Interview of Managers. He thinks this is a good a tactic, at least as a smell test.
  • References. The problem is that they will only give you good references.

He thinks out that you should run a background investigation of the principals.

He moves on to some best practices for due diligence:

  • Don’t take anything from the fund manager at face value
  • Be suspicious of a manager limiting access to information
  • Consult specialist professionals who will be able to spot irregularities
  • Pay attention to what industry leaders are saying and doing about best practices.

Samuel Won and Greg Ivancich presented the view from inside a hedge fund. They believe people were too busy chasing returns during the extended bull market to spend time and energy on due diligence. Too many people just did check the box diligence and did not take a close look.  Investors did not look at the underlying processes and operations at their investment funds.

They also see a regulatory sea change coming, likely to be draconian and over-reaching. They expect to see changes in requirements from institutional investors. Firms may also use the existence of their risk management and compliance as competitive differentiators. There will also be some new best practices emerging.

They see a need for independence. it is important not just to have an independent audit of financial statements, but also of infrastructure, processes, controls, investment style, valuation, and risk management.

Philippa Girling looked at the global political reaction to the current crisis and how it will affect hedge fund regulation.  Germany and France are pushing for deeper regulation that the U.S. IMF is also pushing. (Any country using the term “shadow financing” wants more regulation.) The European Union as a whole is looking to regulate hedge funds.

There are several proposed laws at the federal level: The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act, Supplemental Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act Markets Act, and the Hedge Fund Transparency Act. There are also some proposed hedge fund laws in Connecticut.

What can we do?

  • Anticipate regulatory developments
  • Anticipate increased due diligence
  • Establish appropriate protections to meet anticipated regulations and investor demands. (We have already seen the Obama administration putting a short time line on enacting regulatory problems.)
  • Evaluate risk
  • Manage compliance
  • Ensure Anti-Money laundering procedures are in place
  • Conduct fraud assessments
  • Review current documents for improvement to current best practices
  • Be ready for enhanced due diligence visits from potential investors

Some of the more interesting questions from the Q&A sessions:

What are the most important red flags?

  • A manager not delivering information, instead standing alone on their reputation
  • Lack of third party administrator/custodian

Will regulation just lead to more avoidance?

  • SEC registration does not mean there has been an effective review
  • The UK centralized model takes away the US regulatory arbitrage (different agencies reviewing different types of investment companies)
  • Companies may flee to less-regulated places

More on Madoff’s Auditor

friehling

Yesterday, Madoff’s auditor was arrested for falsely stating that the firm had audited the financial statements. No surprise that such a small firm could be auditing a supposedly large investment company like Madoff Investments.

Just in time, the AICPA (that’s the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) has expelled Friehling from its membership following an ethics investigation.

“Although Mr. Friehling is not charged with knowledge of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, he is charged with deceiving investors by falsely certifying that he audited the financial statements of Mr. Madoff’s business,” said acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin.

Like his client, Mr. Madoff, Mr. Friehling was released on bail. He apparently post a $2.5 million bail bond and walked free, for now.

See: