Due-Diligence on ExecutivesMintz Reports delve into the backgrounds and reputations of candidates before they are hired to executive positions or appointed to boards. We conduct these investigations for companies, search committees and executive search firms.
Mintz Reports verify the professed qualifications of these candidates and uncover inconsistencies, omissions or undisclosed controversies they may have in their backgrounds. Because our clients have so much at stake in executive and board-level appointments, our reports go well beyond obvious online sources and data.
Mintz Reports reflect our expertise in the standards and best practices for what constitutes due diligence and responsible decision-making before relationships.
Typically, our work begins after a client has identified and interviewed one or more finalist candidates. A Mintz Report examines a candidate both professionally and personally, including education and employment history, civil and criminal litigation, regulatory sanctions, licensing and credentialing, press coverage, public profile, creditworthiness and, importantly, controversies at current and prior employers and on boards. Our user-friendly reports flag potential problems for clients to address before making final selections.
We do this work in every corner of the world.
How We Work
- Because the reputations of companies and individuals may depend on the facts we gather, we recognize the importance of accuracy and attention to detail, and our responsibility to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards.
- We listen very carefully to our clients and stick to the priorities assigned.
- We pay strict attention to applicable laws and scrupulously avoid investigative steps that, even if technically legal, might undermine our clients’ interests.
- We believe that thorough investigations can and should be conducted in ways that do not invade anyone’s privacy.
Here are the unique features and best practices that set Mintz Reports apart
We Go Beyond Online Sources
There’s a pervasive myth that everything about a person’s background is available through simple online searches. But, in fact, searching the web is only a first step – to access most of the records that tell a person’s story, one must search manually in courthouses, regulatory files and obscure archives.
Example:
Though not available online, we found an April 1993 Village Voice article that said Jane Doe’s mayoral campaign designated Roger Candidate’s company, Minefield Construction, as one of several “tainted companies” that had donated to the campaign; the money was returned.
We Recognize Red Flags
It takes a well-trained eye (and certainly a human eye, not a computer program) to recognize a red flag – a routine-looking shareholder lawsuit that sparks the attention of regulators or a divorce containing allegations of financial misconduct.
Example:
Databases indicated that, in 2002, a $2,000 judgment was filed against Roger Candidate in favor of Guyana Trading Corp. in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. In the court file, we found the candidate signed a confession of judgment, which said that the judgment was due to “money stolen from Guyana Trading Corp.”
We Conduct Global Searches in Local Languages
We investigate executives all over the world and know where records are to be found in every country. Records and news articles are maintained per local norms and customs and are invariably in their local language; we translate from a variety of languages to achieve seamless coverage.
Example:
We identified 100 articles in English on the company but found few articles in English on the executives. However, in the Chinese press we identified several thousand articles on the company and the individuals as well as lawsuits and regulatory actions not reported in English.
We Alert Clients to Issues in Real Time
One of the worst offenses to a client is to “sit on” red flags that come up early in the process and wait until the background check is complete. We appreciate the need to stay in close touch with our clients.
We Find Trouble in a Person’s Past Even When His Name isn’t on it
The CFO whose tenure was marred by an options-backdating scandal or the hospital administrator who left her job amidst Medicare fraud accusations – these are both situations that raise red flags, but in neither case was the candidate sued or formally accused of misconduct. It is important to search for controversies involving a candidate’s past employers and boards regardless of whether his or her name is on them.
Example:
Candidate was CFO of Jones Management from January 1995 to October 2005. In its 2006 Form 10-K filing with the SEC, the company disclosed having received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting “certain information relating to the company’s stock option grants” and an informal inquiry from the SEC into option grants relating to the time period 2000 to 2004 (while Candidate was CFO of the company). We propose investigating this issue further and look forward to discussing specific follow-up steps with you.
We Clear Up the Fog of Common Names
Clients hate hearing from their background checkers, “We are not sure whether any of these are the relevant person – they are a name match only.” We solve dilemmas caused by common names, including using great care in ensuring that a potentially disqualifying issue indeed involves the candidate and not someone else with the same name.
Example:
In July 1983, a Roger J. Candidate pled guilty to driving under the influence in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, according to an August 1983 Oklahoma City Times article. We believe this was the relevant person because 1) the relevant person worked at a consulting firm in Oklahoma after college, according to his bio; 2) the defendant was 24 years old at the time, which is consistent with Candidate’s age at the time; and 3) we found no other Roger J. Candidates in the state of Oklahoma.
Mintz Reports Go Back More Than a Few Years
Many background-checking firms choose an arbitrary time period, some as short as the last three years, when looking into an executive’s background. But executives can have long track records, and we often recommend going all the way back to college.
Example:
A New York Times article, titled “An Executive’s Missing Years: Papering Over Past Problems,” recounted Candidate’s early career more than 25 years ago, when he was “fired” from two companies. The article said, “Along the way, Mr. Candidate erased both jobs from his employment history. No one who checked his background discovered the omissions.”
Mintz Reports are User-Friendly
Clients are often frustrated by “data dump” reports that require them to wade through reams of undigested background information. We write user-friendly reports that include an executive summary, present complex information in everyday language, and attach the raw documents that we found.
Example:
While Candidate was CFO of the company, SmithCo was the subject of investigations by the Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators in connection with its allegedly improper backdating of stock options granted to company insiders. Candidate and other company officers and directors were also subject to class-action shareholder litigation that was settled earlier this year.
What A Mintz Report Covers
We work with our clients to tailor the research to their particular requirements
Typical Steps:
- Personal litigation
- Employment-related litigation
- Board-related litigation
- Regulatory proceedings
- Licensing and credentialing
- Driving history
- Credit report (with consent)
- Press coverage
- Initial interview of candidate to supplement public-records review
- Interview of references and knowledgeable third parties
- Compile list of follow-up questions for candidate following completion of Mintz Report
- Jobs erased from resumes
- Falsified degrees
- Bankruptcy
- Accusations in lawsuits
- Undisclosed company affiliations
- Bombs in regulators’ files
- Trail of failed companies
- SEC investigations
- Tax liens and disputes
- Sexual-harassment claims
- Litigiousness
- Fake licensing credentials
- Past criminal trouble
- Reason for leaving a job
- Drunken driving
- Façade of wealth
- Charges against foreign subsidiaries
- Scrutiny by consumer and advocacy groups
- Controversies in the media
