Where were the procument/legal/finance safe guards?

Quote

anonymous

Guest
Where were the normal safe guards that the company has put in place to avoid engaging contracts like that of ‘Essential Consulting’?
If any normal Novartian, even quite senior with a high MAL, wants to work with a new consulting or lobby firm there are strict criteria to adhere to including: Procurement, Legal, Finance, Compliance and possibly Corporate Affairs. Our Lobbying guidelines are very clear.
For mere mortals this contract would of never of withstood the rigor of the systems we have in place.
99% of the 120,000 associates stick to the rules and ethical behaviour and if they deviate there are safeguards built in.
I was/am proud to work for this company but action has to be taken swiftly to identify those whose naive (or worse) actions have damaged our reputation and all the good work we do. Associates right now are feeling ashamed and disgusted and need to know publically that the company are cutting out the bad apples, no matter how senior they are.
 




anonymous said:
Where were the normal safe guards that the company has put in place to avoid engaging contracts like that of ‘Essential Consulting’?
If any normal Novartian, even quite senior with a high MAL, wants to work with a new consulting or lobby firm there are strict criteria to adhere to including: Procurement, Legal, Finance, Compliance and possibly Corporate Affairs. Our Lobbying guidelines are very clear.
For mere mortals this contract would of never of withstood the rigor of the systems we have in place.
99% of the 120,000 associates stick to the rules and ethical behaviour and if they deviate there are safeguards built in.
I was/am proud to work for this company but action has to be taken swiftly to identify those whose naive (or worse) actions have damaged our reputation and all the good work we do. Associates right now are feeling ashamed and disgusted and need to know publically that the company are cutting out the bad apples, no matter how senior they are.
Click to expand...

Look into Andre Wyss, former NBS Head; Global Public & Government Affairs reported into him.
He would have had the MAL.

Coincidentally, he resigned this past March about a month after Vas took the helm.
 




anonymous said:
Look into Andre Wyss, former NBS Head; Global Public & Government Affairs reported into him.
He would have had the MAL.

Coincidentally, he resigned this past March about a month after Vas took the helm.
Click to expand...

Global Procurement also reported into Wyss, so clearly this is yet another example of "Do as I say, not as I do".
 








anonymous said:
Look into Andre Wyss, former NBS Head; Global Public & Government Affairs reported into him.
He would have had the MAL.

Coincidentally, he resigned this past March about a month after Vas took the helm.
Click to expand...
A FiercePharma article on May 9th reported the monthly payments as $99,980.00. $20.00 less than $100,000.00. If this is true why? Is there a reporting requirement for amounts of $100,000.00 or more?
 




Honestly, if Joe J wanted to make the expenditure, do you think anyone was going to throw process roadblocks in his way? And this is on the US Government Affairs team, not the global team. I believe that the expenditures are each under $100k meaning that it didn't have to be reported to Basel. The effort involving Cohen and the company's lame response says such bad things about the culture at Novartis. Sad! as Trump would say.
 




As a shareholder I thought it is the job of the Board of Directors and particularly J. R. to control and supervise the Senior Top Leadership to prevent exactly those things (i.e. damage to Novartis). What have they done? What is their position? Why you never hear of them proactivly and during such cases? After more than 5 years in the job, isn`t it fair to ask if J.R. is up to the challenge to clean the house? The situation seems to be out of control at all levels.
 




anonymous said:
Where were the normal safe guards that the company has put in place to avoid engaging contracts like that of ‘Essential Consulting’?
If any normal Novartian, even quite senior with a high MAL, wants to work with a new consulting or lobby firm there are strict criteria to adhere to including: Procurement, Legal, Finance, Compliance and possibly Corporate Affairs. Our Lobbying guidelines are very clear.
For mere mortals this contract would of never of withstood the rigor of the systems we have in place.
99% of the 120,000 associates stick to the rules and ethical behaviour and if they deviate there are safeguards built in.
I was/am proud to work for this company but action has to be taken swiftly to identify those whose naive (or worse) actions have damaged our reputation and all the good work we do. Associates right now are feeling ashamed and disgusted and need to know publically that the company are cutting out the bad apples, no matter how senior they are.
Click to expand...

As a shareholder I thought it is the job of the Board of Directors and particularly J. R. to control and supervise the Senior Top Leadership to prevent exactly those things (i.e. damage to Novartis). What have they done? What is their position? Why you never hear of them proactivly and during such cases? After more than 5 years in the job, isn`t it fair to ask if J.R. is up to the challenge to clean the house? The situation seems to be out of control at all levels.
 




anonymous said:
Honestly, if Joe J wanted to make the expenditure, do you think anyone was going to throw process roadblocks in his way? And this is on the US Government Affairs team, not the global team. I believe that the expenditures are each under $100k meaning that it didn't have to be reported to Basel. The effort involving Cohen and the company's lame response says such bad things about the culture at Novartis. Sad! as Trump would say.
Click to expand...


See http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/threads/why-was-the-1-2m-paid.622482/#post-6052109
 












anonymous said:
As a shareholder I thought it is the job of the Board of Directors and particularly J. R. to control and supervise the Senior Top Leadership to prevent exactly those things (i.e. damage to Novartis). What have they done? What is their position? Why you never hear of them proactivly and during such cases? After more than 5 years in the job, isn`t it fair to ask if J.R. is up to the challenge to clean the house? The situation seems to be out of control at all levels.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding. Proactively and VRP J. Reinhardt is a “contradictio in adiecto” – J.R. is not even postactively - uninformed and totally uninterested (and in this respect supportive for poor managers) is the characterization fitting him best if informed about breach of code of conduct problems.
 




Novartis GC resignation points to compliance themes
Tom Fox | May 22, 2018


The fallout from the Michael Cohen/Essential Consulting affair continues with the news that the general counsel of Novartis, one of the companies that retained Cohen’s services, is retiring from the company for his role in the scandal. Felix Ehrat said in a press release that he was retiring “in the context of discussions surrounding Novartis’s former agreement with Essential Consultants, owned by Michael Cohen.” Ehrat defended the contract as “legally in order; it was an error.”

This final statement by the now-disgraced executive illustrates two key themes. First, it highlights the difference between a corporate legal function and a compliance function. The only question in front of legal is whether the action the company is about to take is actually legal. While it is not clear if the company performed any legal analysis to ascertain if hiring the personal lawyer of a sitting U.S. president broke any Swiss law regarding the bribery and corruption of foreign (that is, foreign to Switzerland) officials, it is clear that Ehrat thought and continues to believe the contract was legal.

The second theme: What is the business justification for doing business with this third party? Presumably, the company knew Cohen was associated with President Trump, so why do business with him? This is a mandatory inquiry in any best practices compliance program. Failure to conduct such an inquiry before the third party is retained is clearly a red flag. In the case of Novartis, it was not until they had inked the $1.2 million contract that they discovered Cohen did not have the expertise they had been seeking. Of course, they continued to pay him, even after Cohen failed to perform under the contract, because they did not want to upset the President.

It was an error all the way around.
 




Compliance? said:
Novartis GC resignation points to compliance themes
Tom Fox | May 22, 2018


The fallout from the Michael Cohen/Essential Consulting affair continues with the news that the general counsel of Novartis, one of the companies that retained Cohen’s services, is retiring from the company for his role in the scandal. Felix Ehrat said in a press release that he was retiring “in the context of discussions surrounding Novartis’s former agreement with Essential Consultants, owned by Michael Cohen.” Ehrat defended the contract as “legally in order; it was an error.”

This final statement by the now-disgraced executive illustrates two key themes. First, it highlights the difference between a corporate legal function and a compliance function. The only question in front of legal is whether the action the company is about to take is actually legal. While it is not clear if the company performed any legal analysis to ascertain if hiring the personal lawyer of a sitting U.S. president broke any Swiss law regarding the bribery and corruption of foreign (that is, foreign to Switzerland) officials, it is clear that Ehrat thought and continues to believe the contract was legal.

The second theme: What is the business justification for doing business with this third party? Presumably, the company knew Cohen was associated with President Trump, so why do business with him? This is a mandatory inquiry in any best practices compliance program. Failure to conduct such an inquiry before the third party is retained is clearly a red flag. In the case of Novartis, it was not until they had inked the $1.2 million contract that they discovered Cohen did not have the expertise they had been seeking. Of course, they continued to pay him, even after Cohen failed to perform under the contract, because they did not want to upset the President.

It was an error all the way around.
Click to expand...

Of course the contract was totally legal. OTOH, ethically questionable to the nth degree.

The optics confirm systemic corruption, but these fuckers thought and still think they are untouchable.

More in store...
 








Top Bottom
Back
Quote