Training and Communications

Training and other forms of communication play can be essential to mitigating any major C&E risk area. In this section of the blog we will explore various COI-specific training and communication issues.

An outline for core employee training on conflicts of interest

COI training is not a new topic for the blog. Prior posts have addressed training of board members  on conflicts;   cultural challenges to global COI training efforts  (through guest posts by Lori Tansey Martens); and  various forms of non-training communications addressed to COIs (through guest posts  by Joel Rogers), such as COI quizzes.  We have, as well, considered the implications of certain behavioral  ethics research for compliance training and communications generally  and recently done the same with respect to moral intuitionism.   Moreover, many of the various news stories covered in this blog over the past two years provide – we hope – useful material for some COI training.  However, we have never looked broadly at core COI training for employees, and so do that today.

What should such training entail? One approach would be to:

– Define COIs, perhaps using the fiduciary duty of loyalty (at least for US-based training) to underscore the potential seriousness of COI issues in the employment setting.

– Describe the potential harms that can be caused by COIs – not only in terms of corrupted decision making on the part of the conflicted party but also the potentially even greater harm that can flow from loss of trust by shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and regulators, as well as the various ways in which COIs can give rise to legal liability for organizations and individuals. (Prior posts about some of these harms are collected here.)

– Explain what both apparent and potential COIs are and why they can be as harmful as actual  conflicts.  (Here are posts on apparent – and, to a lesser extent, potential – COIs.)

– Provide an overview of the organization’s abstain-or-disclose rules. (Here is a prior post on COI review processes.)

– Review need-to-know points about the most common forms of COIs  – conflicting financial/ownership-type interests conflicting employment-type interests; misuse of company resources; conflicts involving family members; and accepting gifts, entertainment, travel and the like (see posts collected here ).

– Depending on one’s industry, possibly explain the difference between individual and organizational COIs.

– If not already covered in other training  provided by the organization, include the mandate of  not  causing conflicts in others  (in effect, corruption-related risks  – although often a  more soft-core form than what is covered by anti-bribery laws) .

Finally COI training can provide a useful opportunity for discussing the important and interesting area of behavioral ethics, and particularly the overarching lesson of that field – we are not as ethical as we think, which underscores the importance of a strong approach to C&E programs generally and enhanced ethical awareness for managers in particular. (For more on this see behavioral ethics posts collected here.)

The science of disclosure gets more interesting – and useful for C&E programs

In “Nothing to Declare: Mandatory and Voluntary Disclosure Leads Advisors to Avoid Conflicts of Interest,” published last month in Psychological Science,    Sunita Sah   and George Loewenstein   note that “[p]rior research documents situations in which advisors— subject to unavoidable COIs—feel morally licensed to give more-biased advice when their conflict is disclosed,” as well other  factors suggesting that disclosure is often less of an effective mitigant than might be imagined.  (For more information on some of this research see this post on moral licensing and this one  on the pressure that individuals to whom disclosure is made might feel to accept the conflict.)  However, the authors argue – and support with the results of several experiments  that they conducted –   “[w]hen COIs are avoidable … the situation can change dramatically because the ability to avoid conflicts brings other motives into play.”

One of these motives is that “disclosure becomes a potential vehicle for demonstrating one’s own ethics …to signal to themselves and to others that they are honest and moral …and that they prioritize others’ interests over their own.”  A second motive is that “in many situations advisors benefit financially when advisees follow their advice… [and] disclosing the absence of conflicts increases the likelihood that the advice will be followed,…”

Sah and Loewenstein also note: “Evidence from the field complements [their] findings. The American Medical Student Association’s PharmFree Scorecards program (which grades COI policies at U.S. academic medical centers…) has been successful in encouraging many centers to implement stronger COI policies.  Similarly, mandatory disclosure of marketing costs for prescription drugs in the District of Columbia produced a downward trend in marketing expenditures by pharmaceutical companies, including gifts to physicians, from 2007 to 2010…”

The authors’ findings make sense to me.  Indeed, in one of the above-noted earlier posts I suggested that the research indicating that disclosure could be harmful in the professional advisor context because it creates pressure to accept the COI  may not apply to the same extent “in the setting of a business organization – with defined and enforced ethical standards regarding COIs, where one might be more concerned about looking bad to one’s colleagues (or bosses) than to the conflicted party.”

That is, the first of the two motivations that Sah and Lowenstein identify as relevant to disclosure – the desire to show one’s trustworthiness – is likely to be a powerful force in many business organizations given the often strong enforcement of COI rules that began with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and which is also supported  by the general importance of “organizational justice” to C&E program efficacy and the specific relevance of COI enforcement to organizational justice.  (The other motivation, however, is much less applicable outside of the professional advisor context, and indeed the notion of mandatory versus avoidable COIs may also be more relevant to the advisor context than for business organizations.)

So, the results of this study seem like good news.  But is it news that C&E professionals – who operate more in the business organization rather than in the professional advisor context – can use to make their companies’ C&E programs stronger?   Or, is it – as one C&E professional I know recently said of much behavioral ethics – the stuff of “parlor games”? (Note: I don’t agree with this critique, but it is worth noting that C&E practitioners, as a group, don’t seem to be doing much with behavioral ethics findings.)

I think that this knowledge can in fact be put to use for C&E purposes.   That is, it suggests that in policies, training and other C&E communications, companies should emphasize how timely and complete COI disclosure may be important to an employee’s being seen as trustworthy within an organization – as well as by other important parties (e.g., customers or suppliers).

More broadly, C&E professionals should find ways to address this motivation in helping employees understand the business case (in terms of their careers)  not just for full COI disclosure  but for ethical excellence  generally. Of course, this approach already exists to varying  modest degrees in some C&E programs, but there is plenty of room for many organizations to do more in this regard.

Catching up on backdating

Many years ago, I heard a businessman who had been convicted of tax fraud describe how he and his confederates had, while their crime was underway, minimized the wrongfulness of what they were doing, which included backdating documents: we used to joke, he said, that we were so dedicated that sometimes we were still working as late in the year as “December 38th.”  While perhaps a cute story (at least for this time of year)  more relevant for C&E professionals  (and to conflict of interest history) are the backdating cases which began in 2005/2006 and involved the retroactive dating of stock options issued to corporate officers to a time preceding a run-up in the price of the company’s shares.  While the act of granting lucrative options was itself not itself problematic, the backdating was kept secret from the shareholders, who unwittingly were made to bear the cost of this largess and which therefore could  be seen as a securities fraud.

A large number of class action lawsuits were brought against directors and others for claimed breaches of fiduciary duty arising from this backdating, but in the years when this was happening many observers sought to minimize the wrongfulness of the conduct.  From much of the commentary at this time,  one could easily get a sense that these were mere technical violations and that it would all turn out to be much ado about nothing – i.e., no more serious than meeting a year-end deadline by working until “December 38th” seemed at the time it was happening.

However, in a recent post in the D&O Diary,  Adam Savett, Director, Class Action Services at KCC,  surveys the relevant cases and notes that “early prognosticators … were significantly off in predicting outcomes … of [these] cases.  The settlements were not insubstantial, having a combined value of more than $2.38 Billion….” Also, 82% of the cases settled – a considerably higher number than the historical average for securities class actions (65%).

Also noteworthy here is a comment on the D&O Diary  posted  by Michael Klausner  and Jason Hegland of the Stanford Law School to support Savett’s “point that the options backdating cases turned out to [be] serious…” They note: “Individual defendants made above-average personal, out-of-pocket payments into settlements of backdating cases” and “[t]he percentage of settlements paid fully or partially by insurers was lower in backdating cases than in other cases.”

How can C&E professionals use this page of history in training directors and officers?  Not to show that backdating is wrong, as I think that would (now) be seen as unnecessary.  Rather, and together with other scandals involving directors (see discussions collected here), the backdating cases can be used to make a more general point about the need for directors to have a heightened sense of ethical awareness. Put otherwise, directors and officers should not count on their instincts – or insurance – to save them from the consequences of an ethical lapse.

Behavioral ethics teaching and training

In “Teaching Behavioral Ethics” – which will be published next year by the Journal of Legal Studies Education, and a draft of which can be found here  – Robert Prentice of the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas  presents his pedagogical approach to  behavioral ethics.  The paper should be useful not only to other business school professors in preparing their own ethics classes but also to C&E professionals who are considering training business people on “‘the next big thing’ in ethics…”

Prentice’s article describes in considerable detail what he covers in each session of his course. The first addresses why it is important to be ethical, including the many positive as well as negative reasons, and the second the sources of ethical judgments, with a key point being that such judgments tend to be more emotion based than is commonly realized.

The next few classes are about “Breaking down the defenses,” which make the overarching behaviorist point “we are not as ethical as we think” and which explore many key concepts in the field, including self-serving bias;  role morality; framing;  the effect of various environmental factors – such as time pressure and transparency – on ethical behavior;  obedience to authority; conformity bias; overconfidence; loss aversion; incrementalism; the tangible and the abstract; bounded ethicality; ethical fading; fundamental attribution error; and moral equilibrium.  Prentice also discusses research showing that “people are of two minds,” and “tend to be very good at thinking of themselves as good people who do as they should while simultaneously doing as they want,” as well as the related facts that we often don’t do a very good job in predicting the ethicality of future actions and are not especially accurate in remembering the ethicality of our past actions.  At various points in the paper he illustrates these phenomena not only with behavioral studies but also with well-known cases of legal/ethical transgression (e.g., Martha Stewart’s conviction for obstruction of justice as a possible manifestation of loss aversion).

The final part of Prentice’s course is aimed at helping students be their “best selves.” This begins with teaching the differences between the “should self” and the “want self,” and the importance of incorporating the needs of the want self in advance, e.g., by rehearsing what one would do if faced by a particular ethical dilemma. Also important to being one’s best self is “keeping one’s ethical antennae up….[to] always be looking for the ethical aspect of a decision so that [one’s]  ethical values can be part of the frame through which” a problem is examined.  As well, Prentice exhorts his students to “monitor their own rationalizations,” and use pre-commitment devices to decrease the influence of the “want self.” Finally, he discusses research by Mary Gentile showing that more often than is appreciated, “one person can, even in the face of peer pressure or instructions from a superior, turn things in an ethical direction if only they will try.”

All told, this seems like a great course, and I wish that it could be taught in every company as well as in business school. Of course, those providing C&E training in the workplace typically are not given a semester’s worth of time to do so, and indeed there seems to be a recent trend in the field of C&E training – particularly given the “training fatigue” that one finds in some companies – to try to do more with even less.   However, I do think some of the behavioral notions discussed in Prentice’s article can be the basis of compelling workplace training.

First, the fact that it is a relatively new area of knowledge, that it is science based and that it is clearly interesting can make behavioral ethics more appealing to business people than a lot of traditional C&E training. Indeed, using behavioral ethics ideas and information can be a welcome relief from “training fatigue.”

Second, the lessons about how to become our “best selves” are indeed quite practical, and for that reason should be welcome in the workplace.  Indeed, given the many careers that have been damaged/destroyed by  business people not keeping their “ethical antennae up,” these lessons should be seen as business survival skills.

Third, the totality of these studies showing we’re not as ethical as we think  helps makes the case – as well as any legal imperative ever could – for the need for companies to have strong C&E programs.  This should be part of any C&E training (as well, in my view, business school ethics classes), but is particularly important to include in training of boards of directors and senior managers.

Finally, directors and senior managers have an espescially strong need to learn about behavioral ethics research showing that those with power tend to be more ethically at risk than are others, as discussed in various prior posts – such as this one  (review of an important paper by Scott Killingsworth), this one  and this one, to which should be added this recently posted paper  about a study to showing that “employees higher in a hierarchy are more likely to engage in deception…” than are others.  To my mind, the prospect of helping companies with the politically sensitive task of bringing sufficient compliance focus to bear on their heavy hitters is as important as is any of the other possible real-world contributions of this promising and fascinating new field of knowledge.

Ethics training – making it real: part two of our interview with Steve Priest

In today’s post we conclude our interview with Steve Priest.  Information about Steve, and Part One of the interview, can be found here.

Should ethics training be a stand-alone offering or is ethics part of broader training (compliance, leadership, etc.)? Jeff, I wish I had 1%–even 1/10 of 1%–of the money companies have wasted on ethics and compliance training in the past 20 years. There is some evidence that training that is risk and role based—and is targeted, short and engaging—can improve employee perceptions of management commitment, and perhaps even decrease the likelihood that they will engage in stupid, unethical or non-compliant behavior. On the other hand, let’s look at the somewhat prominent school in Princeton, your beautiful town. Dan Ariely’s research there found that taking a week long morality course did not affect the rates at which Princeton students cheated in an experiment one week later. What did make a difference? A reminder right before the experiment about the school’s honor code. Short, sweet, targeted, proximate—these were the keys even before the Twitter/Angry Birds generation. So integration makes a lot of sense because we can have much more frequent, relevant touch points.

What works and what doesn’t when it comes to training boards on ethics?  Same question  with senior managers. In the past two months I had the opportunity to train the board of one of the world’s largest energy companies and one of the world’s largest retailers. In the latter case it was the third time they asked me. I think the secret is no secret: board members and senior leaders view themselves as very smart, successful, and ethical. And for the most part they are. Respecting that, and building training that is engaging and relevant to their roles and responsibilities works with senior leaders just like it does with front line employees. Cases and conversation make it real and relevant.

You’ve done ethics & compliance work in close to 50 countries.  Can you describe some of the pitfalls that one can face when training without being sufficiently attuned to the local culture? A number of years ago I was conducting training in Moscow when a person raised his hand and said “You are from Chicago, right?” “Yes.” “Well, I am from Yekaterinburg, and we have hundreds of missiles aimed at you right now.” Usually the defensiveness is not so overt, but it is always in the room.  The biggest danger is the perception of (misplaced) ethical superiority. That is, it is very easy for people to interpret that the reason that an American/Brit/etc. is coming over to conduct ethics/compliance training is because it is believed that the US/Great Britain is ethically superior to whatever country you are in. I address this head on first thing by talking about how I am from Chicago, listing several of the ethical challenges we have faced, and acknowledging that I don’t have all the answers but have become pretty good at thinking about these things. I also try to tap into local ethical heroes or foundations to illustrate that this is not a Western issue—ethics is important in every culture.

Thanks, Steve – wise words.

 

Complying with customers’ conflict of interest requirements

A federal indictment handed down this week charged a former CEO of CalPERS (the California Public Employees Retirement System), who had become a consultant to a “placement agent” just one day after leaving CalPERS,  with defrauding Apollo Global Management in connection with Apollo’s payment of  14 million dollars in fees to the placement agent for its role in persuading CalPERS to hire Apollo to manage some of its funds.  As charged in the indictment, Apollo asked the agent to have a CalPERS official sign a letter saying that they were aware of the placement agent’s role in getting Apollo the business, but CalPERSs’ officials – presumably concerned with the conflict of interest involved – refused to do so. So, the former CEO and a colleague at the placement agent allegedly created and presented to Apollo phony letters evidencing such approval.

This is a fairly unusual (as well as tangled) case and apparently leaves open a number of  important questions regarding CapPERS and Apollo.  But it also raises the broader and more general question which countless companies face on a frequent basis:  what should be done to ensure that one’s employees and agents are complying with a customer’s COI standards, (a topic we haven’t explored since the early days of the blog)?

There are a number of possibilities here, including the following:

– Mandating that your company’s employees/agents comply with relevant customer standards, i.e., building such an expectation into your code of conduct, other policies and agency agreements.

– Training and otherwise communicating periodically to at-risk employees and agents on such expectations.

– Making an effort to ensure that employees/agents are in fact aware of applicable customer standards, such as by collecting and distributing relevant sections (e.g., on gifts, entertainment and travel) of customer codes of conduct to employees/agents who deal with such parties.

– Including such standards in one’s audit protocols.

– Contacting the customer with respect to specific contemplated actions that could raise COI  issues under the customer’s policies or relevant law.

The last of these measures is, of course, the most delicate – and it is not something that companies tend to do for small-scale matters (e.g., taking a customer’s employee to lunch).  However, for potentially weightier COI issues it is often warranted (and, of course, should be done where required by law – as was the case in the CapPERS matter).

Finally, it is worth considering that there are different  types of effort that each of the above compliance measures can entail.  For instance, regarding the delicate but potentially important customer-contact-related measure one can require that:

– Written notice be given to the customer (e.g., the supervisor of an employee of a government agency who one would like to invite on a business trip) –  a one-way written communication.

– The customer confirm in writing its approval of the contemplated action (e.g., what Apollo sought to do here) –  a two-way written communication.

– There there be an in-person or telephonic contact with the customer – to avoid the type of fraud that happened in the CalPERs case.

Values, culture and effective compliance communications – the role of behavioral ethics

Compliance-related communications constitute a large part of the day-to-day work of many compliance-and-ethics departments.  But is this work being done in the most effective manner reasonably possible?

“Modeling the Message: Communicating Compliance through Organizational Values and Culture,” – published last fall by attorney  Scott Killingsworth in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics  – provides a thoughtful examination of what we can learn about compliance  communications from various findings of behavioral science.  The article critiques the traditional approach to compliance communications – which focuses on avoidance of personal risks  – as being premised on a  “rational actor” theory that in recent years has been seriously undermined by the results of behavioral economics/ethics research. In this regard, Killingsworth argues: “Instead of conveying the message that compliance is non-negotiable, [the personal risk versus reward approach] implies that it may be negotiable if the price is right.”  An additional source of concern is that this way of communicating may send the implicit message “that management does not trust employees. Potential side effects of this message range from resentment, to an ‘us-versus-them’ attitude towards management, to a reverse-Pygmalion effect in which employees may tend to ‘live down’ to the low expectations that are projected upon them.”

As an alternative, Killingsworth draws upon the behaviorist concept of “framing” to suggest that communications framed in terms of values and ethics are more likely to be effective in reducing wrongdoing than are traditional compliance communications. In that connection, he describes a study showing “that over eighty percent of compliance choices [in the workplace] were motivated by internal perceptions of the legitimacy of the employer’s authority and by a sense of right and wrong, while less than twenty percent were driven by fear of punishment or expectation of reward.” A second benefit to the values-based approach is that it can better serve as “a source of internal guidance in novel situations” than does the traditional alternative.   Third, communications framed from the former perspective may enhance companies’ efforts to promote internal reporting of violations (obviously an important consideration in the Dodd-Frank era),  a contention that he bases on a study which showed that “the reporting of compliance violations encountered dramatically different effects depending on whether the subjects considered a particular infraction morally repugnant or not.”

As well as discussing communications per se, Killingsworth’s piece examines “the messages implicit in key company behaviors, which can either reinforce, undermine, or obliterate explicit compliance messages.”   So, while explicit communications are important, C&E officers must also “reach across functional boundaries to executive management and the human resources group and, if necessary, educate them about the principles of employee engagement and the value of consistent explicit and behavioral messaging that activates the employees’ values and brings out their [employees’] better natures.” The piece concludes with a list of other practical recommendations – concerning, among other things, culture assessments and communications strategies – for making all these good things happen.

Finally, I should emphasize that this posting only scratches the surface of what is in “Modeling the Message: Communicating Compliance through Organizational Values and Culture,” and I strongly encourage both C&E professionals seeking to up their respective companies’ communications efforts and behavioral scientists seeking to learn more about how their work can be put to practical use in compliance programs to read the piece in full.

Catching up on CEO COIs

As noted in a previous post, CEO’s tend to have different COIs than the rest of us. Today’s post will look at a few CEO-related COI stories that have been in the news lately.

Most notably, yesterday the pharma company Novartis dropped a controversial plan to pay outgoing CEO Daniel Vasella up to $78 million over the course of six years. As described by Forbes, “The board had originally justified its decision in order to ‘protect’ the drug maker, since Vasella knows ‘the company’s business intimately, having built the leading R&D organization and personally recruited most of the top executives.’ In other words, the payoff was hush money designed to keep him from telling secrets to competitors.” The notion that a board could even consider paying a CEO something extra for keeping shareholder secrets is – at least on its face – pretty distressing.

Public sector organizations have CEO’s, too – and various press accounts have noted that super-lawyer Mary Jo White, who President Obama has nominated to head the Securities and Exchange Commission,  will need to take conflict avoidance measures if confirmed for that post.  But as noted in this recent story in Bloomberg News , while it is hardly unusual for a lawyer going from private practice to public service to have COIs of this sort, White’s particular contemplated mitigation approach to her potential COIs (which concern not only her law firm partnership but that of her husband, himself a prominent securities lawyer) appears to be of less than optimal efficacy.

I should stress that I don’t think there is any chance that White will personally act in a conflicted way in the discharge of her duties at the SEC.  But individual honesty is presumably not the end of the analysis regarding any leader’s COIs – and that is particularly so where a) the leader leads a government agency whose mandate includes, among other things, addressing COIs (at least in the financial services field);  b) that agency has an uneven record over the years in enforcing that mandate; and c) there is a reasonably strong concern among press and public that the reason for the agency’s shortfall is one of regulatory capture.

And speaking of the SEC, there is this story   from yesterday about a deposition of hedge fund chief Steve Cohen whose firm, SAC Capital, is being investigated for insider trading.  Cohen apparently testified: “I’ve read the compliance manual, but I don’t remember exactly what it says,’’ and, according to John Coffee, a noted securities-law professor at Columbia, “That’s a dangerous statement. The fact that he doesn’t know what’s in his compliance manual is useful to the SEC,” should it decide to pursue the firm on a “control person” theory of liability (which essentially involves supervisory neglect).

But is this really a COI issue?  It is in the sense that under Delaware law compliance oversight failures by directors and officers can be deemed a violation of the duty of loyalty, which – even if not technically involving a conflict – is from the same neck of the woods as COIs.

Finally, just today an internal investigation cleared former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon of any “intentional wrongdoing” in connection with the controversial borrowing practices that were the subject of the prior post linked to at the top of this one.  But presumably it did not do the same with respect to creating an appearance of a conflict  – given the facts as described in the prior post, that could not be done with a straight face.  And with CEOs, proper appearances can matter just as much as avoiding actual COIs, as evidenced by the great costs and disruption that befell Chesapeake when the borrowing practices became known to the company’s shareholders and others.  Indeed, the company evidently continues to be the subject of an SEC investigation concerning these matters, and COI watchers may be able to look to the outcome of that inquiry for an early view of how seriously that agency will address conflicts in the era of Mary Jo White.

 

 

Breaking news: just-published study shows that COI policies can…work!

One of the sources of frustration of toiling in the C&E field is the relatively small amount of data from the workplace on the efficacy of various program measures in actually reducing wrongdoing and otherwise promoting ethical conduct.   While unfortunate, this dearth of proof is not surprising; after all, what company would allow some or all of its employee population to serve as a control group for an “ethics experiment”?

But, as suggested by this article published yesterday in Science Daily, part of this proof gap has been filled by a recent study:  “Psychiatrists who are exposed to conflict-of-interest (COI) policies during their residency are less likely to prescribe brand-name antidepressants after graduation than those who trained in residency programs without such policies, according to a new study by researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. The study is the first of its kind to show that exposure to COI policies for physicians during residency training — in this case, psychiatrists — is effective in lowering their post-graduation rates of prescriptions for brand medications, including heavily promoted and brand reformulated antidepressants.” The study will be published in the February issue of Medical Care.

Note that while evidently precedent setting in terms of medical COIs, there is other  data – from the behavioral ethics field –  showing that well-timed exposure to a rule or ethical standard can  impact behavior in desirable ways. That research – and the ways in which its teachings might form the basis of effective C&E communications strategies – is discussed here.

Catching up on directors’ conflicts of interest

Directors’ conflicts of interest are one of the favorite topics of this blog.  Among our prior posts on this subject are this one on what to cover when training directors on COIs ,  this one on corporate charitable giving,  this one on board COIs in internal investigations and this one on COIs in connection with service on the board of a joint venture.  We’ve also addressed the need for directors to monitor the COIs of senior executives in their companies – and the dire consequences that can arise from a failure to do so.

So, what’s new in the area?

First, this recent story from Bloomberg news  reported on possible conflicts involving a prominent university’s board: “13.5 percent of Dartmouth’s $3.5 billion endowment is managed by firms that are related to trustees or investment committee members.” Dartmouth is not alone in this respect, but some schools do ban the practice, based on COI concerns: “Trustees shouldn’t manage university money because of the potential for self-dealing and other abuses, says Mark Williams, a former Federal Reserve bank examiner who teaches risk management at Boston University.  ‘Even the appearance of conflicts of interest can create reputational risk and harm the institution,’ Williams says. ‘The perception is almost as bad as the act of conflict. It does damage to that reputation, which has taken many universities centuries to create.’”

On the other side of the coin, the alumni in question have apparently been very generous in their gifts to the school, so it is arguable that on a net basis the practice is worthwhile – although balancing tangible gains against possible intangible losses is hardly an easy calculus to undertake in any meaningful way.  The piece also noted: “The potential conflicts can be thrown into high relief when funds lose money. As chairman of Yeshiva University’s investment committee, J. Ezra Merkin funneled the school’s money via his hedge funds to con man Bernard Madoff in return for fees. The $1.1 billion endowment lost $14.5 million when Madoff’s Ponzi scheme blew up in 2008.”

I don’t know what to add to this except the general comment that many non-profit organizations (i.e., not just universities) could use more rigor in their approaches to COIs. Here is a piece that speaks to that.

Second, this recent post, by Klaus J. Hopt, a professor and director (emeritus) at the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, in Hamburg,  on the Harvard Law School Forum for Corporate Governance makes an interesting comparison between the duty of loyalty owed by directors under US and UK law and the prevailing approach under the continental system:  “The duty of loyalty is highly developed in Anglo-American countries, but it has received more hesitant attention in continental European countries.” However, the piece notes: “More recently there are tendencies to more convergence [and] more attention is paid to prevention, remedies and enforcement.”

At the risk of sounding US centric (whereas I’m really just COI-centric), this does sound like a positive development.  Moreover, and beyond the scope of Professor Hopt’s paper (which can be downloaded via the Harvard site), it is interesting to consider that under Delaware law (in particular the Stone v Ritter case) a board’s compliance and ethics oversight duties are  actually based on the duty of loyalty – and perhaps the convergence will extend in that direction, as well.