Derek Wetmore is a Managing Associate in Orrick's San Francisco office. His practice includes a range of criminal and civil enforcement actions involving potential violations of securities laws, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the False Claims Act, and antitrust laws.
Derek represents companies and individuals across the globe. His clients range from closely held private entities to Fortune 50 companies in the technology, finance, retail, and manufacturing sectors. In addition to representing clients in enforcement actions, Derek has conducted dozens of internal investigations in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. He also counsels companies on compliance best practices and has served on the Monitor Team for a banking technology company.
Prior to law school, Derek worked as a data analyst for an environmental engineering firm with a focus on geospatial analysis, remedial design, and negotiations with state, federal, and foreign governmental agencies.
Derek's notable engagements include:
Representation of a Fortune 50 financial services company in an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into compliance with Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements.
Representation of a Fortune 50 consumer company in FCPA and AML internal investigations throughout Latin America.
Serving on the Monitor Team for an FCPA
Monitorship of a banking technology company.
Representation of a government contractor in a False Claims Act investigation.
Representation of foreign electronics and automotive parts corporations under investigation by the DOJ Antitrust Division for alleged cartel activity.
Representation of an individual in a DOJ Antitrust Division criminal investigation of alleged anticompetitive activity in the automotive parts industry.
Conducting numerous investigations into
potential bribery allegations and violations of internal policies for public
and private clients in the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.
This is the second in a series of posts where we will explore critical elements of a successful compliance program. In February, the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section offered a new perspective on what the government expects in an anti-corruption compliance program, in the form of a series of questions that companies should be prepared to answer about their program. The guidance offers companies a roadmap for building or assessing their compliance program. In this series, we will explore recent and past guidance on key compliance topics, as well as key takeaways for companies of all sizes.
It would be a mistake for companies to dismiss the Fraud Section’s recent guidance, which one high-level DOJ official suggested may be used more broadly by DOJ’s Criminal Division, as business as usual. It is not just more of the same. The guidance does more than merely flesh-out existing direction; it operationalizes compliance. Consider two examples from the guidance’s “Autonomy and Resources” section:
- Empowerment – Have there been specific instances where compliance raised concerns or objections in the area in which the wrongdoing occurred? How has the company responded to such compliance concerns? Have there been specific transactions or deals that were stopped, modified, or more closely examined as a result of compliance concerns?
- Compliance Role – Was compliance involved in training and decisions relevant to the misconduct? Did the compliance or relevant control functions (e.g., Legal, Finance, or Audit) ever raise a concern in the area where the misconduct occurred?
Without fanfare or forewarning, the US Department of Justice released new anti-corruption compliance guidance on February 8, 2017. The eight page document provides rare insight into the government’s evaluation of corporate compliance programs. Companies designing compliance programs, conducting internal investigations, or facing a bribery or books and records-related government inquiry can now look to the appropriately titled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” for a hint at the types of questions they should be prepared to answer.
As emphasized in the Department of Justice and Security and Exchange Commission’s November 2012 FCPA Resource guide, DOJ’s recent guidance again reinforces that a compliance program should be individualized to a company’s risk profile, and so should the government’s evaluation of the program. The guidance is clearly not a checklist that applies to all. It does, however, provide more detail about the way a company should evaluate its own program. Companies can leverage the information to design more robust compliance programs and better respond to potential violations. READ MORE