Who Evaluates the Chief Audit Executive (CAE)?

At the bottom of this post is a screen shot from the new publication Ethics and Pressure, Balancing the Internal Audit Profession, published primarily from the 2015 global practitioner survey of internal auditors worldwide. This is a really big survey. What do you think of the screen shot? Is it appropriate for management to evaluate the chief audit executive (“CAE”)? I say “yes,” of course.

I note however, that the writer also says “Exhibit 9 indicates that this responsibility [i.e., the responsibility for evaluating the performance of the CAE] is generally split evenly between management and the board. The big exception is in North America, where 61% of CAE’s are formally evaluated by management. Often however, these evaluations are reviewed by an audit committee.”

Let me just say, and I read a fair amount of materials from or relating to the internal audit profession, these sentences from the writer probably speak volumes. Do you mean to say that the audit committee isn’t always also doing its own evaluation of internal audit? I really hope that’s not what the writer is saying.

If you are on an audit committee, do you evaluate the performance of the CAE and of the internal audit function (if you have an internal audit function)? I certainly hope so. I mean, regardless of how internal audit operates with management, as an audit committee member aren’t you interacting with internal audit also, and isn’t internal audit helping you to satisfy your due diligence responsibilities? If not, you really need to sit down and think about how the audit committee is using internal audit.

And, if you are an internal audit CAE or member, if the audit committee isn’t sufficiently interested in you to evaluate your performance and how you help or don’t help the audit committee, then you are really missing the boat with a significant entity (i.e., the audit committee) that you should be helping.

In fact, most of the materials that I read from internal audit miss the boat, in my opinion. Yes, management’s use and interaction with internal audit is very important, but the audit committee really should value and make use of the availability of internal audit to help the audit committee satisfy it’s duties. If this isn’t happening, both the audit committee and internal audit are missing out on a tremendous opportunity. It might also be argued that both are failing to satisfy their responsibilities.

Here’s the screen shot from the survey and discussion:


The FCPA Blog – Richard Bistrong: The dangerous charm of agents – a very well-written scenario

Below is a link to an article from The FCPA Blog (The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Blog). The article discusses a hypothetical (or perhaps actual) scenario that can happen to any corporate representative on any day. The following is a copy and paste from the beginning of the article (to get you interested in reading the remainder):

“What is it about agents, fixers, and intermediaries that makes them so attractive while potentially toxic to multinationals?

If you haven’t spent extended time with them, it’s hard to understand.

So here’s what I shared last week at the FCPA Blog NYC Conference.

During our session called The Other Side of the Sting, Getting Stung, Dick Cassin asked, “What’s it like working with intermediaries, on a personal level?”

That’s not something we often hear about. In most of my readings, agents are abstract concepts, part of an “issue” about potential ethical and legal hazards. But there’s often something much deeper going on.

Most top agents are extremely kind, courteous and gracious people. Let me add overly polite. When their clients come to see them at far off locales, either for the first time or over the course of an engagement, the agents are wonderful hosts. From arrival at an airport until departure, the client is treated as an honored guest, often even invited for a meal or two at the agent’s home.”

And here is the link to the entire article: CLICK HERE

Read the remainder of the short article. You can envision this scenario happening all the time, or not at all. The point is that there always is a risk. The agent might simply be being nice, and hospitable, or in accord with country or community customs. So, yes, obviously you all know that you need/must have a robust compliance and disciplinary program that is outwardly supported by executive and mid-management, and the board members, on down to all employees and throughout the entire organization, and the organizations suppliers and affiliates, but also keep in mind that some of these situations, if they turn wrongful, might also only be prevented or stopped and remedied by an engrained corporate culture of integrity and honesty.

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

Click on the following for Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide, Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide 10202016 with Appendix A

The Business Judgment Rule (animation, for fun, but it’s correct):

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016


New ISO Anti-Bribery Standard – Will It Give Companies An Absolute Defense?

ISO has published its new international anti-bribery standard, ISO 37001. You can find select information about the new standard HERE and at http://http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso37001.htm .

The short PowerPoint presentation in part says:

The Standard benefits an organization by providing:

  • Minimum requirements and supporting guidance for implementing or benchmarking an anti-bribery management system
  • Assurance to management, investors, employees, customers, and other stakeholders that an organization is taking reasonable steps to prevent bribery
  • Evidence in the event of an investigation that an organization has taken reasonable steps to prevent bribery.

SO HERE’S AN INTERESTING QUESTION: will compliance with the standard give the company a free pass on bribery liability with the SEC and other state and federal entities and agencies if in fact a bribery occurs? I bet not. However, consider that generally liability does not result unless the person or entity charged has breached or failed to satisfy the applicable standard or duty of care (except in select situations, e.g., such as strict liability or products liability, etc.), and that breach or failure causes damages. Thus, if the applicable standard becomes ISO 37001, and if that standard is met or satisfied, it certainly is arguable that no fault or liability should result if a bribery occurs.

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California. See also Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 2016), tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-10202016-final-with-appendix-a

The Business Judgment Rule – a short animation (for fun, but also correct):

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016


Sustainability Disclosures – From PWC – Audit Committee Need to Know?

I’m forwarding this along – sustainability disclosure guidance from PWC – click on the following link for the materials and the discussion, CLICK HERE

And I am thinking that there could be a need for increasing audit committee member expertise in the sustainability disclosure area.

Below is a snapshot from the PWC website, followed by a link to Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated January 2016), followed by the Audit Committee 5 Lines of Diligence and Defense. Thank you. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California.

PWC Sustainability Disclosure Guidance


See also my Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide, updated January 2016, Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide 01032016 with Appendix A Final

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016



Trade Secrets And How To Protect Them – Royse Law Firm Webinar – Very Important For Every Business

Below is a link to a detailed and very useful webinar from my friends at the Royse Law Firm discussing trade secrets and how to protect them – this is a very important topic for every business and entity. Click on the following link for the discussion:

New PCAOB Guidance On Form AP – Yes, To My Surprise, Some Of This Is Interesting

I have previously commented briefly about the new audit partner disclosure requirement – essentially, my comment was that I did not really see what the big deal is about this. But on June 28, 2016, the PCAOB issued staff guidance for Form AP, and as a result, I have to step back a little my initial comments. The following is a link to the PCAOB guidance, and Form AP, CLICK HERE

I still don’t believe in the broad view that it is a big deal to name the audit partner, however, I am now seeing that it might be possible to do a tally on how many audits a particular person (identified by a specific numeric code for that particular person) is listed as the audit partner, and it would not surprise me if someone in the future, or even the PCAOB, or the SEC, or plaintiffs’ counsel in a litigation case for auditor liability, questions the number of audits on which someone can effectively perform as the primary audit partner?

Further, if my reading of the Form AP, and the guidance, are correct, it appears that the Form requires the auditor/auditing firm to provide the numbers of hours spent performing the audit, and it appears that to some extent those hours need to be further divided or broken down into some of the different important audit areas or programs.  This information could be useful for a number of purposes. It would allow a comparison of audit fee to hours spent between different entities and industries (and how much is being charged per hour). It gives the regulatory entities, such as the PCAOB and the SEC useful information to evaluate audit effectiveness. If admissible in court, it could be used to argue in particular cases whether the auditor spent enough time on a particular audit area or program. And the information about the different audit firms involved in the audit and their time spent might be similarly interesting.

And all of this might be of interest to the audit committee in its hiring, evaluation and retention of the audit firm, assuming, of course, that someone or some entity compiles and reports this information in a useful format.

Best, Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California

Click on the following for my Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide, Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide 01032016 with Appendix A Final

See also my trust, estate, conservatorship, power of attorney, and elder abuse litigation blog at http://californiaestatetrust.com

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016


Basic Insurance for Start-Up Companies – Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq., Woodruff Sawyer

Passing this along, Basic Insurance for Start-Up Companies, the following is a worthwhile read from the D&O Notebook, Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq., Woodruff Sawyer, click on the below link/box for the discussion, enjoy,


Best, Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California.

TATE’S EXCELLENT AUDIT COMMITTEE GUIDE updated January 2016, click on the following link, http://wp.me/p75iWX-q

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016