Mike and Brent propose a new framework for post-resolution third-party independent consultants imposed under corporate resolutions with the U.S. Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS) or monitors imposed under resolutions with the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) National Security Division (NSD) that best promotes underlying national security objectives while also minimizing the impact on the resolving company’s business. Their proposal is based on their prior “Fresh Looks” article with the NYU Law School’s Program on Corporate Compliance & Enforcement (PCCE), “Monitoring What Matters: A Fresh Look Proposal to Government and Industry for How Post-Resolution Oversight Can Best Deny Hostile Actors the Means to Cause Deadly Harm,” from March 28, 2024.

Mike and Brent introduce their prior “Monitoring What Matters” article (00:37), contrast the needs of post-resolution oversight under U.S. export controls with those under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (01:52), and then explain why traditional concepts of what a post-resolution independent monitor or consultant should do miss the mark (02:38), how the compelling need to move quickly could justify imposing key milestones at just 3 and 6 months, with completion in one year (04:56), that this shortened timeframe can be achieved by leveraging the “awareness of a high probability” standard of knowledge under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (05:56), how battlefield risks should drive prioritization (09:28), how third-part independent consultants should be leveraging what is likely, for many companies already on the front lines of U.S. export controls (e.g., by being part of the leading-edge AI ecosystem), a robust compliance program that was likely further enhanced during the preceding government investigation (11:11), how companies and any post-resolution independent consultant or monitor should think about where and how to draw due diligence lines regarding multi-tier distributor and reseller networks (12:57), the importance in the national security context of thinking about third-party consultant and monitor independence not just in terms of independence from direct client relationships with the subject company but also in terms of independence from the relevant foreign country’s military or intelligence agencies, including prior engagements to lobby the U.S. government (16:38), and the three key takeaways from their prior article (22:04). They conclude with Brent’s ever-popular segment, “Managing Up” (28:08).

The prior “Monitoring What Matters” article: https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2024/03/28/monitoring-what-matters-a-fresh-look-proposal-to-government-and-industry-for-how-post-resolution-oversight-can-best-deny-hostile-actors-the-means-to-cause-deadly-harm/

The rest of the “Fresh Looks” series with NYU: www.hugheshubbard.com/fresh-looks

More about Brent: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-carlson-41ba692/

More about Mike: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mhuneke/