For many years, the world of post-settlement FCPA reporting requirements was black and white – companies were either required to submit to a multi-year independent compliance monitor or the settlement contained no reporting obligations at all. Today, as companies develop innovative reporting requirements to satisfy the government, solutions are often found in the gray area. Finding a customized solution to reduce potentially onerous reporting requirements is crucial, and this article, the second in a three-part series, provides five practitioner-approved strategies to do just that. In addition to advising on negotiating post-settlement reporting requirements with the government, this article also discusses real-world examples of innovative reporting requirements. The third article in the series will describe how to choose the best possible monitor and outline strategies for limiting the expenses of monitorship. The first article in the series examined precedent, practice and trends in post-settlement FCPA reporting obligations; discussed the shift to less traditional forms of reporting; explained the process by which reporting obligations are created; and described the mechanics of the most intrusive types of reporting – traditional monitorship and self-reporting. See “How to Find a Business-Minded Compliance Monitor and Minimize Reporting Requirements When Negotiating an FCPA Settlement (Part One of Three)” (Feb. 20, 2013).