Caremark claims; CAMS; audit committees – forward from plus my comments

Below is a link to a bit that I was reading this morning from

Another Caremark Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss

In a short space the discussion covers three matters that I find noteworthy. In Hughes v. Hu the Court denied a motion to dismiss the claims alleging that the directors, more specifically the audit committee members, failed to satisfy their director fiduciary duties, also sometimes referred to as Caremark duties or claims. Now, if you read the Court’s opinion, the alleged breaches of duty, if they are found to be true as alleged, are pretty egregious indicating obvious red flags that were ignored including possible lack of sufficient expertise to perform required duties and responsibilities. I don’t expect there to be a new run on cases in which Courts start allowing a significant increase in Caremark type cases to proceed. However, I do believe that we have already entered into the beginning stages of an era or period of time when the expectations that investors and the public have of officers and directors are increasing and have increased (witness the development of interest in ESG, for example). Whether or not those increasing expectations correspond into legal duties and responsibilities is yet to be seen, and there will be ebbs and flows – nevertheless, however, and right or wrong, through social media those expectations and perceived breaches thereof will impact the reputations of and perceptions about the business and the people who are involved and who are simply alleged to be involved.

The discussion also discusses CAMs, and audit committees, both of which I have covered and will continue to cover. CAMs, or critical audit matters are new, of course, and at this early stage we don’t really know much about how they will develop in time. CAMs are written by the auditor in the auditor’s view, or at least they are supposed to be. And CAMs are also discussed with the audit committee, and others. I believe that most likely CAMs will increase in importance over time and that there will be a push for auditors to say more and provide more auditor disclosure and evaluation. But we’ll see . . .

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)


Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only.

I am also the Chair of the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.


Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Trust, Estate, Probate Court, Elder and Dependent Adult, and Disability Disputes and Litigation

      • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries, beneficiaries and families; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business, Business-Related, and Workplace Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; Nonprofit Entities; and Governmental Entities

      • Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
      • Misappropriation of trade secrets.
      • M&A disputes.
      • Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes.
      • Buy-sell disputes.
      • Funding and share dilution disputes.
      • Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages.
      • Insurance coverage and bad faith.
      • Access to corporate and business records disputes.
      • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations, Governance, and Responsibilities and Rights

      • Corporate, business, nonprofit and governmental internal investigations.
      • Board, audit committee, governance committee, and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.; and advising audit committees, governance committees, officers, directors, and boards.

Mediations and Services as a Mediator

* * * * *