All issues
Answering my inbox · Issue No. 5
Inherited Flags
Manhattan Grit, Manila Grace.
The Question
A country manager wrote in
“Our local office just acquired a Philippine company. It came with a solid team, consistent customers, and several compliance flags we knew about going in, plus a few we're still finding. None of the founders stayed on, and right now it's unclear who's responsible for what. Global wants the entity brought up to group standard before the first internal audit cycle. Where do we even start?”
The flags aren't the emergency. The missing owner is. Name who's accountable first, and the flags become a list you can work through.
The Manhattan Read
Start with a hard truth. When the deal closed, you bought the whole package, flags included. They are now your exposure. Group audit does not care who created the gaps. It will ask whether you know they exist, what you are doing about them, and whether anyone owns the answer.
So treat this as triage, not a compliance sprint. A sprint tries to fix everything at once. Triage decides what gets fixed first. Skip that step and you will spend week one on the wrong things. You do not need everything perfect before the first audit cycle. You need everything discoverable, categorized, and either fixed or explained.
Build one inventory first. It has to capture two kinds of gaps.
First, the local statutory gap. What Philippine law already required and was not done. That means corporate filings, General Information Sheets, tax registrations, mandatory contributions, board resolutions, and share records. The last one matters most right now, because the acquisition itself has to be properly reflected in the corporate record.
Second, the group-standard gap. What your global policies require that local law never asked for. Think delegation-of-authority matrices, related-party controls, anti-bribery protocols, and record retention rules.
Do not let the second gap swallow the first. A global template, imported whole, sees too much and too little: it misses what Philippine regulators watch, and flags what local law already allows. The inventory has to answer to both standards.
Then sort every line into one of three piles. What must be fixed before the audit, covering any live statutory breach and anything touching ownership records. What can be remediated on a documented, dated plan. And what cannot be closed in time but can be accounted for honestly.
Audit committees have seen messy acquisitions before. What erodes their confidence is a local team caught flat-footed by a question it should already have answered.
The Manila Read
Here is the part of your question I would underline. Nobody knows who is responsible for what. That is not an administrative detail. It is the real flag underneath all the others.
When founders leave at an acquisition, they take more than their shares. They take the institutional memory: why a filing went in late, which resolution was never signed, what was agreed on a handshake. Do not mistake years of deferred compliance for neglect. It is characteristic of a company that grew faster than its back office, run by people who kept the answers in their heads. Now those people are gone, and the answers went with them.
The people who stayed are in the hardest position of all. They are holding gaps they did not create, without the authority to fix them or the context to explain them. If integration is handled as an inspection, they will experience the inquiry as an indictment. And the fastest way to lose what institutional memory is left is to make the people carrying it feel like suspects.
Malasakit here means accountability flows through leadership first, not onto whoever happens to sit closest to the files. Name owners from the top. Acknowledge that the backlog was inherited, not created. Ask the local team what they know, not what they did or who did it. And if the deal left any line open to the founders, use it now, while the goodwill lasts. Handled that way, the flags become the first project the new team completes together. Handled as an indictment, even small gaps become a trust problem that outlasts the integration.
The Move
This week, name owners before you name fixes. Put one accountable person against the entity as a whole, with the authority to make decisions, not just track them. Then build the inventory with the local team, not around them, mapped against Philippine statutory requirements and group standard side by side, with a named owner on every line.
Categorize it within the first seven to ten days, before anyone starts fixing anything. You cannot triage what you have not mapped, and you cannot fix what nobody owns. Acquirers who start remediating before they have seen the full picture waste their energy on the wrong items, then have to explain that to the audit committee too.
Where This Shows Up
This is the work eCSI is built for. We map an inherited entity against both Philippine statutory requirements and the group's own standard, so neither gap hides behind the other. We clear the CorSec and compliance gaps on a schedule the audit calendar can work with. And we build the compliance calendar that keeps the entity flag-free long after integration stops being the headline.
Often, the harder work is alignment: getting a global office and the local team that stayed to share one definition of "clean" and one answer to who owns what. That is the conversation I design and facilitate personally. Either way, we do not report "clean" to headquarters until every item behind it is backed by evidence, and I am the one who puts my name to that. When we say "clean," we mean defensible, not just tidy on paper.