California Department of Public Health Monitors Some Nursing Home Resident COVID-19 Reporting – What Does It Mean, Do They Investigate, Prosecute?

I have provided below two snapshots from the California Department of Public Health’s website discussing and disclosing some information pertaining to nursing home resident COVID-19 cases and deaths, as reported to the Department by the nursing homes themselves. I took both snapshots today, May 9, 2020. I have also provided below a link to the Department’s website page pertaining to nursing home residence COVID-19.

The first snapshot contains the Department’s top-of-the-page introductory paragraphs, indicating that the information provided by the nursing homes is as of May 7, 2020, and describes how that information is reported. The second snapshot is a random snapshot of some of the information that is provided by the Department in the chart of information further down the Department’s page. Note that the actual chart does contain an additional column to the left which provides the name for each nursing home that is listed – I left that information off because it is not related to the purpose of this post, and because you can also find that information yourself if you would like.

Nursing home resident care, processes and procedures, risk management, and reporting are always of absolutely key importance, and are of even more deadly importance in this COVID-19 time. You will also find other prior elder care and nursing home related posts on this blog.

As indicated in the first snapshot, the information that the Department has and provides only is information that is reported by the nursing home facilities themselves to the best of each nursing home’s knowledge. The Department does not discuss the actual criteria or evaluation processes were used by each nursing home, the extent to which the information that has been provided is reliable, whether reliability is evaluated, or how reliability is evaluated if in fact it is. Thus, I would have to assume that the information is not comparable as between different nursing homes. And I would also have to assume that some of the information that has been provided is not accurate or does not satisfy whatever reporting requirements the Department communicated.

Regarding evaluation of compliance programs the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, just as an example, lists three primary criteria, plus subparts:

I.  Is the Corporation’s Compliance Program Well Designed?

II.  Is the Corporation’s Compliance Program Being Implemented Effectively?

III.  Does the Corporation’s Compliance Program Work in Practice?

It would be legitimate to ask the above three questions of each nursing home and of the Department of Public Health with respect to resident care, processes and procedures, risk management, and reporting in this COVID-19 time. The following is a link to an earlier post discussing the Department of Justice’s guidelines for its evaluation of compliance programs: https://wp.me/p75iWX-nb

The first snapshot is provided immediately below. Snapshot two and comments about snapshot two are provided following the first snapshot.

Below is the second snapshot. As I have stated above, the actual chart on the Department’s page contains an additional column to the left which provides the nursing home’s name. Let’s look at the chart. First I noticed that while most nursing homes have provided information, throughout the chart and in the snapshot below, there are facilities for which the information is N/A, or, in other words, there is no information provided. I do not know why there is no information provided, but if I was the Department I would want to investigate the reason for each such facility, and most likely report the reason. And for each such facility I would also need to decide how to proceed on the issue of reporting and there being no information. Of the sixteen facilities in the snapshot below, two are N/A, which is 8% based on a random sampling.

Many nursing homes report no COVID-19 cases or deaths, which is good, but only if the information is reliable. The first column in the snapshot below lists the county in which the nursing home is located, the second column lists confirmed health care worker COVID-19 cases reported that day (May 7, 2020), the third column reports confirmed resident COVID-19 cases reported that day, the fourth column reports confirmed health care worker COVID-19-related deaths cumulative, and the fifth column lists confirmed resident COVID-19-related deaths cumulative. For unknown reason if there are occurrences but those occurrences are less than 11, the actual number of occurrences is not listed. You can view the information provided yourself and reach your own opinions. If you have a loved one in a nursing home you should also ask the facility the questions for which you want information.

You might also be interested, the following is a link to a recent short blog post about family councils: https://wp.me/p1wbl8-w0.  And you can find the Department’s COVID-19 page at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/SNFsCOVID_19.aspx.

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

This is the type of legal analysis and authority that I would expect to see for the stay in place and other orders relating to COVID-19 and the coronavirus situation . . . .

I have provided below a link to a 2005 article (and a first page snapshot – the article is 8 pages) in which the authors discuss legal aspects of state police powers to order isolation, quarantine, health and inspection laws to interrupt or prevent the spread of disease. Note that the article is only the opinions of the authors, I am sure that additional legal authorities exist that the authors have not cited, the article is not directed to California where I am located, or to the county or city where I live, the article is from 2005, which is fairly recent in the context of legal discussions but likely there are additional relevant legal authorities subsequent to 2005, and, as commented below, every such situation and location must be separately evaluated and justified.

Why am I posting this? Plain and simple, because I am a lawyer, I am interested in laws and processes relating to responsibilities, rights, authority, decision making, governance, and risk management, and this is the type of discuss and justification that I would expect to see and that I would hope to see when governmental entities or authorities issue an order or pass legislation, but I am not seeing this type of discussion and justification in the circumstances of the current various different stay at home and other orders and police actions. I simply want to see these discussions as part of the process for all such orders and actions.

People who know me know that I am not turning political – I’m just being a lawyer on this.

Without a doubt, the federal government has police, safety, and public health powers, and individual states also have police, safety, and public health powers although state powers will vary from state to state based on their individual constitutions and other authority including case law interpretation and precedent. And as we are also seeing county and local city or town orders and actions, a similar analysis would also need to be performed for those orders and actions. But every such situation is different including the applicable law, the factual circumstances including the reasonably known and verifiable risks to the individual public that are at issue, the rights that are at stake and that are being limited, and the orders or legislation or other actions that are proposed, ordered or enacted. Thus, I would expect such a discussion for each and every order, legislative act, or action.

There are serious and very important responsibility, right, and legal authority issues at play here. California, for example, has a fairly long Constitution with strong individual rights, which is the way that it should be; on the other hand, there is no doubt that the federal government, and the State of California both have some authority to legislate or order actions to protect the public health and safety. But there needs to be an evaluation of the actions being taken or proposed in light of the identifiable rights that are involved, the limitations on those rights, the actions being taken or proposed, the stated reasons for the actions that are being taken or proposed, the actual reasonably known, identifiable, and verifiable risks and risk management issues that are at issue with respect to the individual public and the public at large in a particular location, and the legal authority of the entity enacting the legislation or issuing the order or taking the action. And I am not seeing these types of legal discussions. I should add that while citing a particular law, statute or regulation as authority for the actions being taken is helpful and should be required, I would also say that simply providing a citation without also citing the specific factual support (i.e., the evidence being relied upon, and not just “science”) for the decision being made and the action being taken is a rather vague and speculative approach.

Different courts at different times have evaluated government actions in these situations by different criteria, for example varying in approach between on the one hand giving deference to government actions, but on the other hand limiting the actions based on the legal authority that the governmental entity possesses, the nature and importance of the rights that are involved, and whether the actions or limitations that are imposed are the reasonably least restrictive and justified under the circumstances.

The following is a link to the eight-page article. Note that the discussion in the article isn’t the answer in the current situation that we are seeing because it isn’t written for the current situation, it doesn’t cite all relevant legal authorities, and the current situation will vary from state to state and location to location (e.g., county, city or town, etc.) within each state, but the article is the type of legal discussion and evaluation that we should be seeing and that I would expect and wish to see from the ordering, enacting or enforcing entity, but that I am not seeing. Here is the article link, followed by a snapshot of part of page one from the article:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569983/

 

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

* * * * *

 

One possible definition of “Governance” . . . .

One possible definition of “Governance” – from the softer side of my blogging:

“Of or relating to an entity, organization, group, or person’s authority and exercise of authority, leadership, decision-making, ability to communicate and communications, accountability, transparency, expertise, availability to be questioned or challenged, open-mindedness, and trustworthiness, and processes, style and optics relating thereto.”

Governance also is situational and transitional, and depends on the particular facts and the optics at hand.

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

* * * * *

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

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

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

* * * * *

 

Getting out of, or delaying, or modifying contracts as a result of COVID-19 and/or government actions – what we are seeing: force majeure clauses, impossibility, commercial impracticability, frustration of purpose, bankruptcy, or other possibilities

A lot of businesses are looking at getting out of, or delaying, or modifying contracts as a result of COVID-19 and/or government actions.

Typical legal arguments for doing so include: force majeure clauses, impossibility, commercial impracticability, frustration of purpose, bankruptcy, or other possibilities.

Each contract and situation is unique, and has to be separately evaluated. For example, this morning I read an article about Hollywood studios starting to enforce force majeure clauses. But force majeure clauses are just one of the possible issues to evaluate, and each force majeure clause and it’s wording has to be considered and evaluated in light of the particular factual situation, jurisdiction, venue, and applicable state law.

The following are two additional related blog post links, one discussing possible additional contract related issues at https://wp.me/p75iWX-sK, and one discussing possible insurance and insurance coverage related issues at https://wp.me/p75iWX-sV.

You will also find additional posts about the above topics, critical audit matters, and going concern issues on this blog http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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

* * * * *

California Department of Insurance Issues Alert for Insurers to Accept, Forward, Acknowledge, and Fairly Investigate All Business Interruption Insurance Claims

On April 14, 2020, the California Department of Insurance (by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara) issued an Alert in reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically to all admitted and non-admitted insurance companies, all licensed insurance adjusters and producers, and other licensees and interested parties entitled “Requirement to Accept, Forward, Acknowledge, and Fairly Investigate All Business Interruption Insurance Claims Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.” You can find the Alert at the following link: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0200-bulletins/bulletin-notices-commiss-opinion/upload/Business-Interruption-Claims-Notice.pdf?inf_contact_key=44c76327a563a3b14bfebe52cf1546a1b7af0999dac2af6212784c39e05d2aef

You might be aware that possible insurance recovery by businesses for losses arising from COVID-19 already is a heavily discussed legal topic in the context of business interruption and other possible insurance policies and coverages. Each business should be evaluating each of its policies, not just its business interruption policy, for possible coverage. Such a discussion and evaluation requires specific policy analysis which is beyond the scope of this post or of any one post. Each insurance policy and its coverage, exclusions, etc., must be read and evaluated separately including such matters as the applicable jurisdiction and laws, not just the wording of the policy but also the intent of the policy and the parties, contract and insurance policy legal interpretation, presumptions, burden of proof, etc.

The Alert is also interesting for its citations to the California Code of Regulations at Sections 2695.5 and 2695.7, and requirements pertaining to the acceptance, forwarding, acknowledgement, and fair investigation, acceptance, or denial as those Sections apply to all insurance policies and claims. For example, in part, Section 2695.7(b) requires:

(b) Upon receiving proof of claim, every insurer, except as specified in subsection 2695.7(b)(4) below, shall immediately, but in no event more than forty (40) calendar days later, accept or deny the claim, in whole or in part. The amounts accepted or denied shall be clearly documented in the claim file unless the claim has been denied in its entirety.

(1) Where an insurer denies or rejects a first party claim, in whole or in part, it shall do so in writing and shall provide to the claimant a statement listing all bases for such rejection or denial and the factual and legal bases for each reason given for such rejection or denial which is then within the insurer’s knowledge. Where an insurer’s denial of a first party claim, in whole or in part, is based on a specific statute, applicable law or policy provision, condition or exclusion, the written denial shall include reference thereto and provide an explanation of the application of the statute, applicable law or provision, condition or exclusion to the claim. Every insurer that denies or rejects a third party claim, in whole or in part, or disputes liability or damages shall do so in writing.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection 2695.7(k), nothing contained in subsection 2695.7(b)(1) shall require an insurer to disclose any information that could reasonably be expected to alert a claimant to the fact that the subject claim is being investigated as a suspected fraudulent claim.

(3) Written notification pursuant to this subsection shall include a statement that, if the claimant believes all or part of the claim has been wrongfully denied or rejected, he or she may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance, and shall include the address and telephone number of the unit of the Department which reviews claims practices.

However, in part, Sections 2695.7(c), (d), and (e) also provide:

(c)(1) If more time is required than is allotted in subsection 2695.7(b) to determine whether a claim should be accepted and/or denied in whole or in part, every insurer shall provide the claimant, within the time frame specified in subsection 2695.7(b), with written notice of the need for additional time. This written notice shall specify any additional information the insurer requires in order to make a determination and state any continuing reasons for the insurer’s inability to make a determination. Thereafter, the written notice shall be provided every thirty (30) calendar days until a determination is made or notice of legal action is served. If the determination cannot be made until some future event occurs, then the insurer shall comply with this continuing notice requirement by advising the claimant of the situation and providing an estimate as to when the determination can be made.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection 2695.7(k), nothing contained in subsection 2695.7(c)(1) shall require an insurer to disclose any information that could reasonably be expected to alert a claimant to the fact that the claim is being investigated as a possible suspected fraudulent claim.

(d) Every insurer shall conduct and diligently pursue a thorough, fair and objective investigation and shall not persist in seeking information not reasonably required for or material to the resolution of a claim dispute.

(e) No insurer shall delay or deny settlement of a first party claim on the basis that responsibility for payment should be assumed by others, except as may otherwise be provided by policy provisions, statutes or regulations, including those pertaining to coordination of benefits.

Obviously each individual insurance policy and coverage situation must be separately evaluated. Similarly, in this unusual time many contracts between suppliers and buyers also need to be evaluated – see my prior post at https://wp.me/p75iWX-sK.

In the insurance policy context whether or not an insurer has acted reasonably or unreasonably and possible bad faith are evaluated on many different actions and criteria, some but not all of which, can include the following:

  • The failure to investigate the claim or to investigate the claim thoroughly (and fairly to the insured);
  • The failure to evaluate the claim objectively;
  • Using incorrect, erroneous, improper or unduly restrictive standards or interpretations to delay, frustrate or deny the insured’s claim or the claim form;
  • Delay in claims handling;
  • Unreasonably and unfairly requesting additional and further unnecessary documents or evidence from the insured;
  • The failure to timely or with sufficient detail communicate acceptance or denial of the claim or acceptance or denial of the individual parts of the claim;
  • Unreasonable or unfair delay in payment on the claim;
  • Unreasonably low first party or third party claim or settlement offers;
  • Unreasonable litigation, or unreasonable litigation tactics to delay, frustrate or avoid payment on the insured’s claim;
  • Unreasonable or unfair post claim interpretation or underwriting practices;
  • And other unreasonable, unfair, deceptive, abusive, or coercive practices and tactics to delay or avoid the payment of claims.

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.

Blogs

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 http://californiaestatetrust.com

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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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.

Forwarding: Insurance Coverage Relating to the Coronavirus, and the CARES Act, by Jill Penwarden

I am forwarding the following discussion by Jill Penwarden about possible insurance coverage for business losses suffered due to the coronavirus. Jill’s article is helpful as it coverers several different possibilities.

The following is the introduction paragraph from Jill’s discussion. I have provided the link to the entire discussion below the introduction paragraph.

“INSIGHT  Jill Haley Penwarden · March 31, 2020

Virtually every business is suffering losses due to the coronavirus pandemic, and many are looking to their insurance policies in hopes of relief. Whether coverage will be available will depend on the types of policies in place, as well as the specific coverage wording and exclusions to each policy. Every insurance policy is different, and policyholders will need to review their policies carefully to determine if any coverage is available. The following is a summary of some of the types of coverage that may be available and a discussion of some of the common policy provisions.”

The following is the link to Jill’s entire discussion: https://rimonlaw.com/insights/insurance-coverage-and-the-coronavirus

You might also find useful the following link to my March 3, 2020, post forwarding a discussion on the D&O Diary about the risk of coronavirus-related D&O claims: https://wp.me/p75iWX-rr

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.

Blogs: 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 http://californiaestatetrust.com; 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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 and beneficiaries; 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
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.
  • Insurance coverage

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.

Forwarding – “Being Unprepared for the Crisis Does Not Make it a Black Swan”

I am forwarding the below link merely because the author made an interesting discussion on this topic.

Being Unprepared for the Crisis Does Not Make it a Black Swan

The following is a quote from the discussion – after the “:” the author lists various perceived high-ranking authorities that have warned of pandemic risks for years. Of course, simply warning of a possible pandemic doesn’t equal knowledgeably recommending specifically what should be done to prepare – a broad or general warning of risk without in depth, specific, knowledgeable evaluation, etc. isn’t actual risk management.

Here is the quote from the discussion:

“You may ask what is a black swan?

A black swan is defined as an unforeseen/unpredictable event has a significant impact on the organization (or industry, or economy). The term refers to how in Europe it was understood that all swans, as in the bird, are white. There was no concept of a black swan. Then some explorer overseas finds a black swan and changes the paradigm of what swans are.

The truth is that we have had pandemics in the past. We have had threats of pandemics. We have been warned countless times about it:”

You will find the entire discussion at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/being-unprepared-crisis-does-make-black-swan-michael-rasmussen/

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.

Blogs: 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 http://californiaestatetrust.com; 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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 and beneficiaries; 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
  • 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

 

(A) Your supplier cannot provide you with the materials, parts, goods, or services, or (B) you cannot provide the materials, parts, goods, or services to your buyer – can you, your supplier, or your buyer get out of this?

(A) Your supplier cannot provide you with the materials, parts, goods, or services, or (B) you cannot provide the materials, parts, goods, or services to your buyer – can you, your supplier, or your buyer get out of this?

Maybe, maybe not – it depends on the facts and variables, some of which will and some of which will not be relevant depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. The following are some of the issues to consider:

  1. What are the terms of the contract and with respect to providing the materials, parts, goods, or services?
  2. What was the relevant intent of the parties, if there is a provable intent?
  3. What body of law will apply? Is there a choice of law clause? Where are the parties located, where was the contract entered into, where are the materials, parts, goods, or services to be delivered, where does ownership or title to the materials, parts, or goods legally change hands, etc.?
  4. Is there a jurisdiction or venue clause?
  5. What is the reason that the materials, parts, goods, or services cannot be provided?
  6. How hard did the party try to provide the materials, parts, goods, or services? How much of an effort was made?
  7. Is there a force majeure clause – i.e., relating to impossibility or frustration of purpose? If so, does it apply in this circumstance, and how?
  8. Does the UCC apply? If so, the UCC of which jurisdiction or source, and how does it apply?
  9. Are there any applicable industry standards, or customs and practices that might apply?
  10. Is it that the materials, parts, goods, or services cannot be provided, or is it that there is a delay in doing so?
  11. If it is a delay, is the delay material to the receiving party? How material?
  12. Can the parties otherwise resolve the problem by different or modified terms?
  13. What are the provable damages? And there are a lot more questions here.
  14. And the list of issues continues as each such situation needs to be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances.

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.

Blogs: 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 http://californiaestatetrust.com; 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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 and beneficiaries; 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
  • 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

Comments About Going Concern Uncertainties, CAMs, Etc. – Relevant In This Economic Environment

I have pasted below my post from May 28, 2019, because of the discussion about going concern uncertainties. Obviously in this economic environment a going concern issue might be pressing for more entities than usual.

And if you are interested in CAMs (critical audit matters), the May 28, 2019, post also in part discusses CAMs and provides a link to a prior May 9, 2019, post that also discussed CAMs. Subsequent to the May 9 and 28, 2019, posts I have also provided comments about CAMs in three additional posts – those subsequent posts and links to those posts are as follows: July 17, 2019 https://wp.me/p75iWX-im, September 22, 2019 https://wp.me/p75iWX-k8, and February 22, 2020 https://wp.me/p75iWX-pl.

I don’t hear or see much in the news about disclosures about an entity’s going concern, but I have a feeling that this is going to become a bigger issue for certain public companies, their boards and audit committees, and their auditors. Evaluating going concern is a complicated topic – thus, in this post I am highlighting one aspect, but an important aspect. See, FASB ASU No. 2014-15, and subsequent materials relating thereto. I suspect that most people would conclude that evaluating a potential issue relating to going concern involves, or depending on the circumstances could involve, especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment – thus, potentially raising critical audit matters or CAMs. Click on the following link  https://wp.me/p75iWX-fr for a prior summary post about CAMs. I digress here for one comment: in regard to CAMs, one might ask, for example, “When are the circumstances of an auditor’s judgment simply ‘challenging’ v. ‘especially challenging’”?

Going concern can generally be defined as an evaluation of the entity’s expected ability to continue as an ongoing viable going concern business entity within one year after the date that its financial statements are issued (or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued, when applicable). Thus, for example, obviously for some business entities it can become a question of liquidity or liquid assets v. rate of cash burn. For the purpose of this post, I am looking at this issue only from an accounting/auditing viewpoint. Many other issues can arise, such as, for example, possible shareholder, investor, and creditor rights, and possible officer, director, and shareholder or majority shareholder liability relating thereto.

Now to the single point of this post, ASU No. 2014-15 provides that when evaluating conditions and events as to whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the “initial” evaluation does not take into consideration the potential effect of management’s plans that have not been fully implemented as of the date that the financial statements are issued (for example, the initial evaluation might not take into consideration plans to raise capital, borrow money, restructure debt, or dispose of an asset, that have been approved but that have not been fully implemented as of the date that the financial statements are issued). Again, I digress for one comment: in the above discussion, consider, for example, how to evaluate when a matter is “approved” v. “fully implemented.”

Importantly, I note, however, that later in the going concern evaluation process, mitigating factors should be taken into consideration including, for example, the probability that management’s plans will be effectively implemented within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued, and the probability that management’s plans, when implemented, will mitigate the relevant conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Thus, in the evaluation process there is a timing aspect to considering possible mitigating factors: first they are not considered, but subsequently they are considered including their probability of implementation and success. Obviously, the going concern evaluation can be or can become complicated.

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.

Blogs: 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 http://californiaestatetrust.com; 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  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 and beneficiaries; 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
  • 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

The following are copies of the tables of contents of three of the more formal materials that I have written over the years about accounting/auditing, audit committees, and related legal topics – Accounting and Its Legal Implications was my first formal effort, which resulted in a published book that had more of an accounting and auditing focus; Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, for the California Continuing Education of the Bar has a more legal focus; and the most recent Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (February 2017) also has a more legal focus:

Accounting and Its Legal Implications

Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, CEB Advising and Defending Corporate Directors and Officers

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide

The following are additional materials that you might find useful:

Audit Committee Self-Evaluation Process and Format (and for Boards and Other Committees) – click on the following link https://wp.me/p75iWX-sd for my March 19, 2020, post with an attachment to the discussion and paper.

An internal investigation summary overview page from a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read (and you will also find other posts about investigations on my blog):

 

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Success, Diligence, and Defense - David Tate, Esq, 05052018

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

* * * * *