This article was reprinted with permission from Tom Fox’s FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog.
It was once observed that all western philosophy is but a mere footnote to the works of Plato. However, others believe that his student, Aristotle, merits equal standing. I recently read a review of the new book by Arthur Herman “The Cave and the Light” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by reviewer Roger Kimball. In his review, Kimball said that the book seeks to “explain the metabolism of history with a single master idea: the perpetual struggle or ‘creative tension’ between the ideas of Plato – which he says emphasize the idea at the expense of the actual – and those of Aristotle, whose philosophy remains rooted in experience and everyday life.”
I thought about this dichotomy when I recently came across the Words of Wisdom (WOWLW) blog, which is penned by the Capital Markets Group of the law firm of Latham & Watkins. As stated in the FCPA Guidance, “A company’s code of conduct is often the foundation upon which an effective compliance program is built.” As the Department of Justice (DOJ) has repeatedly noted in its charging documents, the most effective codes are clear, concise and accessible to all employees and to those conducting business on the company’s behalf. The WOWLW blog took a different tack and reviewed the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a code of conduct.
Under SEC regulations, it is a requirement under Form 10-K, Reg S-K Item 406 that a company must disclose whether it has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, controller or persons performing similar functions. If the company has not adopted such a code of ethics, it must explain why not in writing. As WOWLW noted, “Unsurprisingly, almost all public companies have adopted a code of ethics within the meaning of the SEC regulations.”
The article details the required content to be found in a code of conduct. It said that “Item 406(b) defines a ‘code of ethics’ to mean written standards reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and promote:
This requirement also “specifically contemplates that companies may bifurcate their codes of ethics for this purpose:
The article noted that a compliant company is able to disclose its codes of conduct in one of three ways, stated as follows:
Moreover, businesses which have bifurcated their codes of ethics as described above are only required to “file, post or provide the portions of a broader document that constitutes a code of ethics” and made applicable to covered officers.
The SEC also requires certain disclosures of amendments and waivers to codes of conduct. Specifically, “Item 5.05 of Form 8-K requires companies to disclose within four business days any amendment or waiver of the Item 406 code of ethics, either:
This requirement for disclosure does not reach to “technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendments. In addition, companies must disclose amendments to or waivers of their codes of ethics only if specifically required by Item 406(b) (i.e., as one of the five subjects listed above) and applicable to the covered officers” in the company.
Interestingly, if there is an implicit waiver of a company’s code of conduct, it must also be reported: A waiver regarding a code of conduct is required “as the approval by the company of a material departure from a provision of the code of ethics. This also includes ‘implicit waivers,’ defined under Instruction 2(ii) of Item 5.05 as a failure to act within a reasonable time after an executive officer knows of a material departure from the code of ethics. Implicit waivers, as with express waivers and amendments, require disclosure only if related to the covered officers and the provisions specifically referenced in Item 406(b). Companies may also disclose implicit waivers via website if they satisfy the requirements described above. Of course, codes of ethics sometimes describe situations where board approval is specifically contemplated, and an approval process in accordance with the provisions of the code would not constitute a ‘departure’ that would implicate a waiver.”
In addition to the SEC disclosure requirements, both NASDAQ and NYSE listing rules require listed companies to have a code of conduct whose scope is broader that the code of ethics for the purposes of SEC reporting.
Kimball’s review of The Cave and the Light points out the ongoing tension between Plato’s spirituality and Aristotle’s pragmatism. I think the dichotomy between the FCPA Guidance and the SEC regulations as set out by WOWLW points to a more unified thesis. Kimball ends his piece by noting that Aristotle’s sentiments are around the future and not the past. But he adds that in the allegory of the caves, Plato stated that those who leave the cave must return. The same may be said for the codes of conduct the Latham & Watkins Capital Markets Group has discussed.
This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business advice, legal advice or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The author gives his permission to link, post, distribute or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at email@example.com.
Sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter for more GRC articles, job postings, GRC events, white papers & more…..click here
Thomas Fox has practiced law in Houston for 25 years. He is now assisting companies with FCPA compliance, risk management and international transactions. He was most recently the General Counsel at Drilling Controls, Inc., a worldwide oilfield manufacturing and service company. He was previously Division Counsel with Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. where he supported Halliburton’s software division and its downhole division, which included the logging, directional drilling and drill bit business units. Tom attended undergraduate school at the University of Texas, graduate school at Michigan State University and law school at the University of Michigan. Tom writes and speaks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics, ranging from FCPA compliance, indemnities and other forms of risk management for a worldwide energy practice, tax issues faced by multi-national US companies, insurance coverage issues and protection of trade secrets. Thomas Fox can be contacted via email at firstname.lastname@example.org or through his website www.tfoxlaw.com. Follow this link to see all of his articles.