Howard Sklar is a compliance professional with over 15 years experience as a prosecutor, regulator, and in-house counsel.
Howard is Senior Counsel at Recommind, a leading provider of eDiscovery software, with the industry’s only Predictive Coding (TM) functionality.
Prior to Recommind, Howard ran anti-corruption compliance for one of the largest technology companies in the world, #10 on the Forbes list of the largest US companies, Hewlett-Packard Co. Howard was responsible for HP’s FCPA compliance, and compliance with all other anti-corruption laws around the world. Howard also helped various business units with their compliance with US sanctions as counsel for the Global Trade organization.
Prior to HP, Howard was Vice President-Compliance for American Express Co. Howard ran compliance—acting as a functional chief compliance officer—for the largest travel management company in the world, comprising 25,000 employees in over 40 countries. Howard was responsible for the entire program including policies, training, metrics, and operationalizing the standards he helped develop. Included in these divisions was a money-services business, giving Howard extensive AML experience as well.
Howard also served as American Express’ first-ever Global Anti-Corruption Leader. Howard designed and implemented Amex’s FCPA compliance program virtually from the ground up.
Howard has extensive regulatory experience: he spent six years at the SEC, investigating and prosecuting ponzi schemes, accounting fraud, insider trading, and every other type of case the SEC handles. Over six years, Howard litigated numerous cases in federal court and in administrative hearings, handling every aspect of litigation from complaint drafting to discovery to motions to trial.
Howard spent 6 years investigating white-collar crime in one of the toughest counties in the US: Bronx County, New York. While in the DA’s Office, he developed a sub-specialty in computer crime.
Howard is also a sought-after speaker and lecturer. He has trained in-house corporate departments, law enforcement, and has spoken at numerous conferences on general compliance topics as well as on FCPA compliance.
Howard@OpenAir 
I have had dinner WITH TOM FOX recently as well. Some lunches in the recent past, as well. I agree with you wholeheartedly that he is a great law-yer (as he would pronounce it) and a great guy. He has spoken highly of you in person, in addition to referencing you in his blogs.
Dear Howard
I can’t find an email address for you on this site so am using this comment facility to make contact and say the following:
1) If I may say so, this is a great blog. I haven’t read all of it but what I have read I generally agree with. Even where I don’t I enjoy your arguments.
2) I have just finished writing a book on the Bribery Act, which I believe will be the most comprehensive treatment of the law to date. It will be published in late June ( http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/publications/company-law/bribery-and-corruption-law-and-practice#overview ).
3) In the book I plan to make reference to some of your commentary on the Case-Studies attached to the MOJ Guidance and make reference to this blog in a list of useful websites. I thought I would give you a heads up on this in case you were averse to this, for any reason.
Feel free to email me if you would like to respond – it’s probably easier than communicating by blog…
Best Wishes
Eoin O’Shea
I’m interested in your thoughts on the extension of Anti-Bribery and Corruption training by global companies (Company A) to their 3rd party providers (Company B) who may provide a service such as logistics handling, customs clearance, planning approvals (any service that may interface with government authorities or state owned enterprises) on top of the training that the 3rd party provider may already supply.
Does this add to or decrease the risk of action if the third party is later found to be acting unlawfully in some of its operations? By putting your own training over the top do you add to the compliance burden of testing to see if it is effective? and if you don’t test compliance……..
I seem to recall some commentary about an FCPA agreement forcing a US company to do this, but am interested in discussions about companies opting to do this?
I think that training any third party is problematic. From an administrative perspective, how do you track it? How do you implement consequence management? How do you figure out who to train? How do you decide content? How do you limit liability? (You train their employee on anti-corruption; that employee bribes to get his or her employer a contract; the third party says “your training stunk.”)
And how do you choose which third parties to train?
What method do you use to train? Live? How? Computer? Not very effective, and that can get expensive.
The juice just ain’t worth the squeeze on this one, in my opinion.