Kent State Alum leaves White House for Private Sector
In January 2015, he left the White House to become managing director of Investigative Group International, an investigation and corporate intelligence firm, whose clients include Fortune 500 companies, law firms, universities, high net-worth families and government entities. “It is as important to our clients that they have the right people as it was for the President, “says Graham.
General Counsel Magazine on IGI’s hire of Douglas Graham
The Obama administration’s Vetting Advisor for Presidential Personnel, Douglas Graham, has joined Investigative Group International (IGI) as a Managing Director. Graham’s leadership responsibilities within the Executive Office of the President included vetting Presidential appointees, a complex and politically delicate process entailing extensive investigation of professional credentials and an array of sensitive legal, financial and reputational issues. Graham worked hand in hand with the White House Counsel’s office to ensure candidates could withstand Congressional scrutiny and meet the high ethical standards required of Presidential appointees.
White House Vetting Advisor Leaves for IGI
Terry Lenzner’s Investigative Group International Lures Douglas Graham
Printer-Friendly Page
WASHINGTON– The Obama administration’s Vetting Advisor for Presidential Personnel, Douglas Graham, has joined Investigative Group International (IGI) as a Managing Director, the prominent private investigation and corporate intelligence firm announced today.
Graham’s leadership responsibilities within the Executive Office of the President included vetting Presidential appointees, a complex and politically delicate process entailing extensive investigation of professional credentials and an array of sensitive legal, financial and reputational issues. Graham worked hand in hand with the White House Counsel’s office to ensure candidates could withstand Congressional scrutiny and meet the high ethical standards required of Presidential appointees.
“Whether a company hiring a new CEO or a university appointing a president or athletic director, our clients are looking for a level of confidence and trust in their personnel hires,” said Jonathan Lenzner, Executive Vice President of IGI. “Doug’s experience vetting cabinet-level candidates will complement our existing world-class expertise in executive background investigations and complex due diligence services.”
IGI’s highly analytical executive background investigations are designed to complement a client’s overall evaluation of a candidate, rather than focus merely on potentially disqualifying information. The quality reputation of IGI’s work is reflected in the fact that financial services clients routinely point to IGI-conducted investigations of their employees as a valuable indicator of their trustworthiness.
“I couldn’t have found a better fit than IGI,” said Graham. “The experience and wisdom I gleaned working at the White House on the most sensitive personnel investigations is fundamental to the work IGI does across its practices, from internal investigations to assisting clients in high-stakes contests for corporate control.”
Prior to working in his senior role at the White House, Graham served in multiple positions at New Partners Consulting, where he consulted on numerous successful Congressional campaigns and worked for tech companies. Following his graduation from Kent State University, he spent four years at the Democratic National Committee, where among other work he helped lead the party’s opposition research effort.
For 30 years, Investigative Group International has been a preeminent private investigation and corporate intelligence firm that has honed its world-class fact finding skills in a wide variety of complex legal, financial and governance situations. IGI was founded in 1984 by former Watergate prosecutor, Terry Lenzner, as the first investigative firm supervised by attorneys and former prosecutors operating in tandem with its in-house law firm, The Lenzner Firm, P.C.
IGI case managers, investigators and researchers are attorneys, forensic accountants, former law enforcement officers, journalists, intelligence analysts and auditors who bring diverse credentials, experience and perspective to investigations. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., IGI employs investigators and researchers in California, Boston, Seattle, Florida and New York, and maintains a network of sources and assets throughout the world. IGI has grown its corporate client base since March 2013 when Jonathan Lenzner, Terry’s son, joined the firm as Executive Vice President after serving as a federal and Manhattan prosecutor. IGI clients include Fortune 500 companies, law firms, universities, high net-worth families and government entities.
Media Contact:
John Hellerman
202-841-8153
jhellerman@hellermanbaretz.com
Read Jon Lenzner’s New Jersey Law Journal Article on Compliance Regulations and Due Diligence
Corporations face greater obligations regarding international supply chain management
By George Benaur, David Dixon and Jonathan Lenzner, New Jersey Law Journal
Printer Friendly Page
Operating an international supply chain already raises many legal concerns for U.S. companies under U.S. and international laws. And now, new regulatory developments are likely to increase the level of due diligence that U.S. companies need to conduct on their international product and worker supply chains.
The recent legal developments, which include the new Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rule “Ending Trafficking in Persons,” and the proposed Business Supply Chain Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act of 2014, come at a time of wide news coverage highlighting problems with outsourced production (such as, for example, Samsung ceasing business relations with a Chinese supplier due to child-labor concerns and last year’s factory collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh). Despite these known problems, while an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. gross domestic product (GOP) comes from retail consumption, a tremendous amount of manufacturing is taking place abroad, largely in the Far East. In a time of increasing regulatory oversight and media coverage of the problems with outsourced production, companies in all industries are advised to reevaluate their compliance programs and policies to ensure that they are in line with the new regulations and best practices.
FAR Regulation and the DoD FAR Supplement
Federal government contractors will soon experience the implementation of new regulations on human trafficking. In September of 2013, the government issued a proposed FAR rule that: (a) expands the scope of prohibited conduct; (b) requires a compliance plan and new contract certifications; (c) requires new mandatory notification requirements; and (d) also applies these requirements to subcontractors and suppliers. See FAR Case 2013-001, Ending Trafficking in Persons, 78 Fed. Reg. Vol. 187 (Sept. 26, 2013 ).
Along with the existing types of prohibited conduct-including “severe forms” of trafficking, paying for sexual acts and forced labor (See 48 CFR 22.17 and 48 CFR 52.222-50)-the proposed new FAR rule includes six additional types: (1) denying access to employee identification documents; (2) misleading or fraudulent recruiting practices; (3) charging recruitment fees; (4) failing to provide return transportation for employees; (5) providing substandard housing; and (6) not providing employment documents in the employee’s native language before employee departs from country of origin. FAR Case 2013 at sees. 22.1703(a) and 52.222-SO(a).
The new rule would also require government contractors to develop and implement a compliance plan for contracts performed outside of the U.S. with an estimated value of greater than $500,000, unless the contract is exclusively for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. ld. at sec. 52.222-50(d)(5). This compliance plan must include specific “minimum requirements” set forth in the rule. ld. at sec. 50 (h)(3). When the compliance program requirement applies, the contractor must also certify that, after conducting due diligence: (i) neither it nor any of its agents, subcontractors, or subcontractor agents are engaged in improper activities, and (ii) if abuses have been found, the contractor or subcontractor has taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions.ld. at sec. 50 (h)(5).
There is also a mandatory “notification” requirement, in that the contractor must “immediately” notify the government if it receives: (1) “any credible information” from”any source”that alleges a contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the rule; and (2) any actions taken against a contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee or its agent for a violation pursuant to the rule. ld. at sec. 50 (d). Violations under the proposed rule can occur not only because of prohibited conduct, but also for: (a) inadequate or nonexistent notification; (b) failure to provide full cooperation in a government investigation; or (c) failure to implement or follow the compliance plan.ld. at sec. 50 (e). The government’s remedies for any such violations can include termination of the contract for default and suspension or debarment from government contracting.
The government has also proposed new trafficking regulations specifically for defense-related contracts. These proposed rules for the Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), will additionally: (a) require new hot line posters to inform workers on how to disclose violations; (b) apply the new FAR human trafficking rule to DoD contracts in excess of $150,000; and (c) require the establishment of a “bill of rights” for contractor personnel accompanying armed forces. DFARS Case 2013-D007, Further Implementation of Trafficking in Persons Policy, 78 Fed. Reg. 187 (Sept. 26, 2013).
The final FAR and DFARS human trafficking rules are expected to be issued very soon, since they build on and implement existing law, specifically Executive Order 13627 and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
New Proposed Act and ABA Model Policies
This past June, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the Business Supply Chain Transparency on Trafficking & Slavery Act of 2014 (H.R. 4842), which would require qualifying public companies to disclose their efforts to identify and address human trafficking and other human rights abuses in their supply chain. This effort, which has bipartisan support, appears to be the latest legislative effort, following the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act and Dodd-Frank’s conflict minerals rule, to address human trafficking overseas by enlisting the might of public companies subject to SEC oversight.
Like the California state law, this federal legislation applies to corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million. Maloney’s bill applies to a universe of companies beyond just retailers and manufacturers. The bill would also force a company to look further back into its supply chain, in contrast to the California law, which relates only to top-tier suppliers. These details relating to scope and application may be the future battlegrounds where corporate lobbyists try to influence the final versions of the proposed regulation and law.
Proponents of Maloney’s bill cite corporate ethics and consumers’ desire for transparency as the engines behind this overall approach to combating global labor trafficking. To be sure, efforts by various colleges to pressure brand manufacturers have proven successful. The interest of institutional and individual investors in understanding the potential flaws in a public company’s supply chain might prove a compelling factor that is based in capitalism. Notwithstanding the legitimate concern of excessive SEC disclosures, the trend to force corporate transparency in supply chains seems to reflect a growing recognition that the antisweatshop movement is not limited to nonprofits and corporate governance scholars. Another consideration is that these regulations come at a time of increased initiatives to try to re-shore manufacturing to the U.S. (and there are similar initiatives, and regulations, being implemented in Europe).
The American Bar Association (ABA) also weighed in on these developments in February by adopting the ABA Model and Business Supplier Policies on Labor Trafficking and Child Labor. The four “black letter” principles contained in these policies include: (1) the business will prohibit labor trafficking and child labor in its operations; (2) the business will conduct an assessment of the risk of labor trafficking and child labor and continually monitor implementation of this policy; (3) the business should (i) train relevant employees, (ii) engage in continuous improvement, and (iii) maintain effective communications mechanisms with its suppliers; and (4) the business will devise a remediation policy and plan that addresses remediation for labor trafficking or child labor in its operations.
The ABA’s policies and commentaries provide a useful beginning for assessing whether a company’s anti-trafficking compliance program is in line with the current state of good practices. Applying a risk-based assessment and focusing on “first tier” suppliers is consistent with the realities of the global market and many of the industry groups that submitted comments on the proposed FAR rule on human trafficking. The practice of identifying areas most at risk may require sophisticated investigative resources on site, since evidence of trafficking is often not apparent to the untrained observer. Businesses may not readily see through the nuances of a local culture or the economics of a country where suppliers are located. Workers may be coached or intimidated and local governments do not necessarily have an interest in a company maintaining a clean supply chain. Even if U.S. laws and regulations provide consistent guidance, a company tasked with new anti-trafficking mandates will be well served by customizing their compliance program to the geographic and political realities of their supply chain.
Getting Ahead of the Curve
The argument for corporations to get ahead of the curve and implement reasonable policies of their own, in advance of future press conferences at the U.S. Capitol and in the Rose Garden that some companies fear, has been strengthened by recent bad publicity in this area. For example, New York University, which created policies and procedures to govern the construction of its new campus in Abu Dhabi, learned that preventive measures are not always sufficient to avoid reputational and economic harm. The apparent disconnect between NYU’s well-intentioned lawyers and the managers on the ground in Abu Dhabi may illustrate the reality that the effectiveness of a compliance program can hinge on the ability of a company’s investigators to understand the local culture and recognize the subtle signs of labor trafficking.
The passage in the U.S. House of a provision in the defense-spending bill giving preference on military bases to supporters of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh may be further indication of the growing momentum behind these legislative and regulatory efforts. Industry groups succeeded in stopping the bill in the Senate, citing the reasonable concern that the provision would punish American companies while rewarding European competitors. The growing momentum in Congress, and the media’s interest in stories similar to NYU’s apparent troubles in Abu Dhabi, would suggest that the federal government’s efforts to pressure corporations to address labor trafficking should not be ignored.
Given the dynamics of both the movements to re-shore manufacturing and the media exposure of disasters associated with human trafficking, the new regulations significantly impact supply chain management strategies of all companies sourcing products abroad. These new regulations make it plain that a company will have to do more to comply with its due diligence requirements than merely include contractual provisions in its supplier contracts that its third party contractors and/or factories have complied with applicable laws. The regulations call for active engagement and due diligence by corporations and, for this reason, they are likely to change the scope of compliance required to operate international supply chains.
Benaur, counsel at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Princeton. N.J., represents clients in general corporate matters, risk management and dispute resolution. Dixon is counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office, where he chairs the firm’s Government Contracts Litigation section. Lenzner is a former prosecutor and now serves as the executive vice president of Investigative Group International in Washington, D. C.
Copyright 2014. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
New Rules to Fight Human Trafficking in International Supply Chains
New Jersey Business Magazine
By George Benaur and Jonathan F. Lenzner
New federal procurement rules are likely to impact more than 68,000 federal government contractors in New Jersey, as well as 5,400 sub-contractors. The new rules, contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation titled “Ending Trafficking in Persons,” have been subject to a period of public comment and are under final review by the General Services Administration (“GSA”).
This development will add a new layer of compliance for government contractors, on top of already existing obligations, and may require certain contractors to reassess their international worker supply chains. The new rules add protections for foreign employees against human trafficking abuses. They impose greater obligations and restrictions on contractors regarding record keeping, employee recruitment practices and related fees, and other new obligations.
Once implemented, the rules will increase the liability exposure for US government contractors, especially those dealing with international subcontractors and outsourcing services abroad. Companies that outsource services or obtain products from abroad in connection with government contracts, particularly where the portion of the government contract performed outside the US exceeds $500,000, may need to reassess their current compliance programs or implement a program if they do not have one.
Companies may also need to restructure their existing international product and services supply chains. Under the new rules, if a company is obligated to have a compliance plan, then it will need to include a specific employee awareness program, a process for reporting violations, new recruitment and wage plans with particular requirements, an employee housing plan, and procedures to prevent agents and subcontractors from engaging in trafficking. The contractor would also be required to certify that (after having conducted due diligence), to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief: (1) neither it nor any of its agents, subcontractors, or their agents is engaged in any trafficking in persons activities, or (2) if abuses have been found, the contractor or subcontractor has taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions.
Evidence of trafficking is often not readily apparent to the untrained observer. Contractors may not readily see through the nuances of the local culture or economics of a country where manufacturing occurs. Laborers may be coached (or intimidated) to respond to questions in order to sidetrack an investigation. Satisfying the new compliance standards will require not only the expertise of personnel experienced and trained in investigating labor trafficking, but also people familiar with local culture.
Government contractors need to be aware of these developments and monitor the implementation, and future enforcement proceedings, in connection with these rules. There are real questions about how contractors can satisfy these new obligations. For example, may a company with operations in numerous countries with varying degrees of exposure to trafficking apply a risk-based approach to their due diligence? How expansive is the definition of a company’s “agent,” and will a company be permitted to conduct some investigation of its own before notifying the government? When the final version of the regulations are announced, a US contractor’s existing compliance policies should also be re-assessed. Contractors should prepare to deal with the looming implementation of these rules, and the corresponding risks.
About the Authors:
George Benaur, counsel at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, in Princeton, represents domestic and international clients in corporate due diligence, risk management and dispute resolution, including complex litigations. Jonathan F. Lenzner is a former federal and Manhattan prosecutor with experience in prosecuting trafficking violations, and now serves as the executive vice president of Investigative Group International Inc., a private investigation and corporate intelligence firm, based in Washington, DC.
Terry Lenzner speaks with ABC News about about his career as an investigator.
Watch ABC’s David Kerley sit down with IGI Chairman Terry Lenzner as they discuss Terry’s storied, 50-year career as a legal investigator, as well as the danger today investigators face working for individuals who only wish to “buy their own reality.”
Jonathan Lenzner’s Wall Street Journal Column on Mathew Martoma and Due Diligence
As jurors in lower Manhattan this week debate Mathew Martoma’s guilt on insider-trading charges, the trial, which heard closing arguments on Monday, has raised another question: How was Mr. Martoma—after being expelled from Harvard Law School for forging a transcript—accepted by Stanford Business School and then hired by a prominent hedge fund?
Mr. Martoma changed his grades to As and submitted the false transcript in his application for a clerkship with a federal judge in 1999. After Harvard discovered the offense and expelled him, the former Ajai Mathew Thomas changed his name to Mathew Martoma. As this story spilled out in the lead-up to his criminal trial, many began asking whether Stanford and his former employer, SAC Capital Advisors, bothered to look at Mr. Martoma’s history. And if background checks were performed, why did they miss these red flags?
The Martoma “conundrum,” as it has been dubbed in the media, reflects a frustrating paradox in the growing due-diligence industry. With advances in Internet search technology and a proliferation of investigative firms, why do we continue to see high-profile cases in which an employee’s prior transgression or act of concealment embarrasses a well-known company or university?
In recent years, executives at Yahoo, Veritas Software and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as a number of university administrators and coaches, have been fired or pressured to resign for misrepresenting their credentials. Last July, for example, Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, the longtime president of the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences, was forced to resign for falsely claiming on federal grant applications that she held a doctorate from New York University.
Surely a prospective employer would have wanted to know that Mr. Martoma previously created a forged document that deceived prospective employers, including federal judges, and then created a fake email and computer forensic company in the attempted coverup.
Unfortunately, there are many reasons why exclusive institutions end up hiring employees with misleading credentials. In some cases, top companies and universities hire individuals without conducting any background inquiry. In other cases, the background check fails to uncover information that should have been found through due diligence.
Some companies choose not to conduct due diligence because of the common false assumption that a prior employer must have run a background check that produced no negative results. That choice can lead to a situation in which an unethical executive rises to the top without ever being properly screened.
Often a single background check isn’t adequate or reliable. Take Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis, the 34-year-old former Navy reservist and computer contractor who killed 12 people on Sept. 16, 2013, before being shot and killed by police. In 2004, Alexis was arrested for malicious mischief for shooting out the tires of a car but was nonetheless granted security clearance in 2008. In 2010, he was again arrested for a gun-related offense but did not lose his security clearance.
This sort of lax oversight of employees is not uncommon. While some employers follow thorough processes before hiring an employee, many do not conduct subsequent background reviews after the individual is hired.
Moreover, less-sophisticated investigative firms often conduct low-budget, glorified Google searches, which may not catch a name change or other nuances. Many government and industry databases and sources cannot be effectively searched with Web search engines. To adequately scrutinize a target’s history, investigators must be aware of and have access to specialized databases, many of which are obscure or expensive to access. Some valuable sources of information, such as court records in certain jurisdictions or county regulatory actions, are still not available online, requiring an in-person visit to the courthouse or agency.
Even investigative firms with adequate resources may miss clues and leads that can provide valuable “second level” information. Some run searches and simply provide the client with a memorandum that mirrors the database results. That is the equivalent of a physician handing you the raw data from your blood labs and EKG.
The risks and limitations of due diligence grow when the hiring employer needs information overseas. An unsophisticated investigator may not grasp the sensitivity of data privacy laws in other countries and how they differ even among neighboring nations. Employees today often have footprints and history in multiple countries, and employers who limit their due-diligence searches to domestic jurisdictions may be setting themselves up for an embarrassing headline down the road.
Advances in technology have given employers false confidence. Anyone can pay to have their history on Google “scrubbed.” In Mr. Martoma’s case, it is unlikely that SAC would have uncovered his name change—and subsequently his misconduct at Harvard—by simply searching online. Yet with a more thorough due-diligence search, Mr. Martoma may not have ended up at the hedge fund—and the firm would have had one less headache.
Mr. Lenzner, a former federal and Manhattan prosecutor, is the executive vice president of Investigative Group International Inc.
Watch Terry Lenzner speak with Sidley Austin’s Jim Zirin
Watch IGI Chairman Terry Lenzner speak with Jim Zirin about what makes a good investigator.
IGI Vice President Jonathan Lenzner Quoted in the New York Post
This article originally appeared on the December 31, 2013 edition on the New York Post
DA blasts call girl’s ‘pimp’ claim By Jeane Macintosh, nypost.com
View Original
December 31st, 2013
I’m no pimp!
A former top Manhattan prosecutor says turncoat hooker Rebecca Woodard’s claims that she was forced to keep turning tricks while working undercover for the district attorney — handing the cash over to the lawman — are an outrageous lie.
“At no time was Ms. Woodard counseled to engage in illegal activities to further the investigation,’’ said former Assistant DA Mark Crooks, who used Woodard as a confidential informant in a 2008 probe of Hockey Mom Madam Anna Gristina.
To the contrary, Crooks, now a Maryland federal prosecutor, told The Post that Woodard simply refused to stop prostituting herself.
Officials also scoffed at Woodard’s claims that she was wired with recording devices around her torso and chest before being sent into potentially dangerous situations.
Former Manhattan ADA Jonathan Lenzner, for one, said the antiquated, Hollywood-like body-wiring scheme was way off base.
“In the DA’s office, technological advances allowed us to use recording devices that are much more discreet,’’ he said. “The recording device would never have a cord — you don’t need one.’’
And Woodard, several sources said, continued to see her well-heeled clients behind the backs of her DA handlers, putting the probe in jeopardy.
As The Post reported Monday, Woodard — who says she was an Eliot Spitzer hooker — claims in her tell-all, “Call Girl Confidential,’’ that she was ordered to “keep breaking the law,’’ and maintains the ADA “was my pimp’’ who ordered her to turn over the money.
“I, along with my fellow district attorneys and investigators, repeatedly admonished her to refrain from engaging in any further commercial sex whatsoever,’’ Crooks said.
“The book falsely portrays a rogue ADA taking questionable and unethical steps to further this investigation,’’ Crooks added, but the probe was “conducted with caution, with oversight from supervisors,’’ knowing that every move would be subject to scrutiny.
Neither Woodard nor her publisher, Simon & Schuster, returned calls for comment.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Reviews The Investigator
Article by: STEVE WEINBERG
Special to the Star Tribune
The character Forrest Gump, invented by novelist Winston Groom and turned into a household name by Tom Hanks in the 1994 movie, has a lot in common with real-life character Terry Lenzner, a lawyer/private investigator who is a household name in Washington, D.C., political circles. The main difference is that unlike the movie character, Lenzner is blessed with a very high IQ.
Books by Washington insiders often promise a great deal, then fail to deliver. Lenzner delivers. His memoir, “The Investigator: Fifty Years of Uncovering the Truth,” is loaded with details about his role investigating numerous scandals, starting with the shameful behavior of Richard Nixon that led to his departure from the White House.
Lenzner is candid about the heroes and villains he has encountered, and candid about himself. Yes, he has plenty to boast about, and he is not always above boasting. Mostly, however, Lenzner is self-effacing, sharing credit with mentors and colleagues, while admitting that he has sometimes been mistaken about the morality of investigative targets.
Lenzner made a difference initially as a young civil rights lawyer within the U.S. Justice Department. Growing up in New York City, he understood little about the Deep South and found himself shocked at the brutality visited upon blacks who attempted to vote and exercise other basic rights. When the brutality turned to murder, Lenzner learned that achieving justice would not come easily.
Lenzner received a different kind of schooling as assistant chief counsel to the Senate Watergate committee investigating Nixon and Nixon’s henchmen. The portraits provided by Lenzner from his ringside seat help flesh out the gazillions of words already published about Watergate. A few heroes even emerge, especially Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina, who chaired the Watergate committee.
Eventually, Lenzner decided to strike out on his own, founding Investigative Group International, which has attracted fascinating, powerful clients worldwide. The wide-ranging memoir discloses Lenzner’s role in investigating the death of England’s Princess Diana, the allegedly corrupt administration of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and the sometimes false allegations against Bill Clinton during his presidency.
Different readers will be most attracted to different case studies. My favorite, because of its rich detail: the 1990s investigation of the supposedly squeaky-clean United Way, run, it turns out, by honcho William Aramony as a personal fiefdom.
Steve Weinberg is a former Washington correspondent for newspapers and magazines who now writes and reviews books full time.
