Is there really a need for third party due diligence?
The debate about third-party due diligence ended two years ago when DOJ prosecutors and members of the SEC staff publicly pronounced that the use of channel partners was the biggest risk to IT companies, bar none.
February 23, 2014 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
For those of us in the IT industry, the debate about third-party due diligence ended two years ago when the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors and members of the Securities and Exchange Commission staff publicly pronounced that the use of channel partners was the biggest risk to IT companies, “bar none.”
Of course, the risk is not limited to IT companies. Increasingly, enforcement authorities recognize the importance of conducting adequate due diligence on third parties, regardless of industry.
As a result, companies and organizations of diverse backgrounds may contemplate any number of challenging decisions in developing a third-party due diligence program. Such programs can take many forms, and the costs of the due diligence can range dramatically depending on the location of the third party and the type of information a company wants to obtain.
In developing a due diligence program, it helps to start by determining which third parties should be screened and how to do so. The DOJ has made it clear that compliance programs can and should be risk-based. That means a company needs a defensible methodology to identify higher-risk third parties and should spend more time and effort screening those that meet its particular criteria for high risk. The process also needs to fit with a company's particular business model and processes. One size does not fit all because the number and role of third parties differs from business to business, as do the risks involved. A company with a dozen key partners or vendors will have a different program than a company with hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands.
Once the right program design is determined, the design team can turn to the looming question of who will pay for the program. Should it be legal? Internal audit? Or should the due diligence be charged to the business as a cost of doing business with third parties? Budget and cost conversations are often challenging, and managing those challenges should be something that is anticipated in the project plan. Regardless of who pays, the business should support a strong due diligence program as an important cost of doing business.
Because all third parties do not present the same risk, having a process with different levels of diligence often makes sense. For example, some third parties are cleared for contract at the first stage of due diligence, while others may require additional research. In certain instances, gathering all publicly available information on the third party may be enough, while in other cases, conducting enhanced due diligence consisting of on-site visits, review of financials, and other in depth inquiry will be required.
Many due diligence red flags can be mitigated, but if the risk profile of a third party is too high and cannot be mitigated, companies must be ready to either reject or terminate the third party. By the same token, if a third party refuses to complete the due diligence program or otherwise address due diligence concerns, it also should be terminated or rejected. Third parties that successfully complete the due diligence program should be screened again within a few years.
As with any compliance program, you should look for ways to improve your third party due diligence program by reviewing industry trends, benchmarking with a wide range of companies, and conducting a formal annual review of the program. Getting started can be tricky as the business adjusts to a new process. However, once implemented, due diligence can and should be a normal part of doing business that everyone values. After all, having confidence in the partners with whom we do business is not only important for compliance, it also makes good business sense.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Understanding the HEMS Standard in Trusts
- 2Mergers Are About People, Not Paperwork: Here’s Why
- 3Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 4Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250