FASB proposes to delay accounting standards implementation – why? – my views, because the changes are significant, and sometimes difficult and disruptive, including on legal issues

The FASB has proposed delaying the implementation of some of the new accounting standards. Here is a link to the news release, and at the bottom of this post I have pasted the news release:

https://www.fasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=FASBContent_C&cid=1176173179331&d=&pagename=FASB%2FFASBContent_C%2FNewsPage

New revenue recognition rules in 2018. New leasing rules in 2019. The change in standards back to a more principle-based approach (such as when I became a CPA) v. the rule-based approach that developed over time. Plus, all of the new standards, some of which have been enacted in part, and some of which are still to come (see below). There is a sea change of accounting standards occurring, not to mention changes to auditing standards, communications with management, boards and audit committees, changing and increasing topics and issues for disclosure, and the increasing expectations upon management, boards, audit committees, internal auditors, outside auditors, and in-house compliance professionals and legal counsel, etc. These and other changes are impacting not only public companies, but also private business entities, and nonprofits. The FASB and other sources acknowledge that significant difficulties and disruptions are occurring.

On the one hand, changes are what they are – my job or task is to deal with them. But these changes to accounting standards are very significant, as are the ramifications.

From a risk management perspective, I suggest that the FASB should continue to evaluate changes that have been implemented, enacted and proposed, and make its views public on an ongoing basis, even just as a reminder, why changes are being proposed and enacted, the pros, cons and costs, and the positive and negative impacts that are being caused upon businesses and job protection and creation, investors, lenders, borrowers, and other stakeholders, and whether the changes are truly necessary and worthwhile compared to the pains or negatives that are being caused.

Consider, for example, to what extent are the rules that were in place for decades deficient? If the then existing rules were deficient, why were those deficiencies allowed to exist? Due to the rule changes, some industries and businesses will see disruption or deterioration to their on-paper financial statements, whereas others will see improvements, all the while they are still the same industries or businesses that they already were. As a result of on-paper rule changes, some industries and businesses will now have an increased risk or difficultly of raising capital or of obtaining loans, and might also be less attractive, or more attractive, as M&A targets, whereas in fact there have been no operational changes in the impacted industries or businesses.

Consider, for example, if the rule changes cause an increase in restatements, such as due to difficulties understanding or implementing the rule changes, or as a result of vagueness in the rule (principle-based approach v. rule-based approach), or, perhaps, the rule fails or omits to include sufficient and necessary detail or scope, will those conditions impact possible liability exposure, standards of care, and the evaluation of possible wrongdoing including level of culpability or wrongful intent, resulting internal investigations, or the applicability of possible clawback provisions, job performance reviews, and other impacted matters?

As said above, my job or task is to deal with those ongoing activities and changes. This post merely discusses some issues for possible consideration resulting from the FASB’s ongoing activities.

Here is a copy of the FASB news release:

FASB SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO DELAY EFFECTIVE DATES FOR PRIVATE AND CERTAIN PUBLIC COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Extends Implementation Deadline for Credit Losses, Leases, and Hedging Standards

Norwalk, CT, August 15, 2019—The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) today issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) that would grant private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and certain small public companies additional time to implement FASB standards on current expected credit losses (CECL), leases, and hedging. Stakeholders are encouraged to review and provide comment on the proposed ASU by September 16, 2019.

The proposed ASU describes a new FASB philosophy that extends and simplifies how effective dates for major standards are staggered between larger public companies and all other entities. Those other entities include private companies, smaller public companies, not-for-profit organizations, and employee benefit plans. Under this philosophy, a major standard would first be effective for larger public companies.  For all other entities, the Board would consider requiring an effective date staggered at least two years later.  Generally, it is expected that early application would continue to be permitted for all entities.

“Based on what we’ve learned from our stakeholders, including the Private Company Council and the Small Business Advisory Committee, private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and some small public companies would benefit from additional time to apply major standards,” stated FASB Chairman Russell G. Golden.  “This represents an important shift in the FASB’s philosophy around effective dates, one we believe will support better overall implementation of these standards.”

Based on that philosophy, the Board proposes to amend the effective dates for CECL, leases, and hedging as follows (chart assumes calendar-year end):

The proposed ASU and a FASB In Focus overview document are available at www.fasb.org.

About the Financial Accounting Standards Board

Established in 1973, the FASB is the independent, private-sector, not-for-profit organization based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that establishes financial accounting and reporting standards for public and private companies and not-for-profit organizations that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The FASB is recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission as the designated accounting standard setter for public companies. FASB standards are recognized as authoritative by many other organizations, including state Boards of Accountancy and the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA). The FASB develops and issues financial accounting standards through a transparent and inclusive process intended to promote financial reporting that provides useful information to investors and others who use financial reports. The Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) supports and oversees the FASB. For more information, visit www.fasb.org.

—————————————————————

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 website. 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.

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, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 other summary materials that you might find useful:

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

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

Forwarding from The FCPA Blog – “Yes, ‘ethical culture’ can be measured” or audited – and so can governance, risk management, compliance, and almost everything, etc. . . .

I am forwarding a July 22, 2019, post by Vera Cherepanova on the FCPA Blog – the following is the link to Ms. Cherepanova’s post: http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2019/7/22/yes-ethical-culture-can-be-measured.html

Ms. Cherepanova highlights the recent Department of Justice update to its “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs,” and also references the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, noting that both in part refer to the importance “for a company to create and foster a culture of ethics and compliance.” She then queries: “But how does a company measure its culture of compliance, and what steps does it take in response to its measurement of the compliance culture?” Responding to her query, Ms. Cherepanova states, “Although they sometimes may be labeled differently, the key five you would want to incorporate [into] your measurement include the following: Achievability of targets, goals, and tasks . . . Communication . . . Leadership . . . Organizational justice . . . [and] Accountability.”

I view the blog post as discussing at least two issues: “yes, ethical culture can be measured,” and “criteria that might be used to measure ethical culture.” My response to the first issue also is “yes.” In fact, ethical culture not only can be measured, but can also be audited, such as by internal audit or outside audit. Related to culture, tone-at-the-top and internal controls and control processes have long been recognized as elements in an audit at least from the standpoint of evaluating the possibility of fraud and the extent to which records can be relied upon in designing the audit. Almost anything can be audited including, for example, not just financial transactions but also governance, risk management or risk management processes, compliance with laws, and the list is almost endless.

The more challenging issue is what criteria to use to measure or audit ethical culture and other areas? And, of course, there are follow up issues such as determining who will actually perform and evaluate the measurement or audit process, and will the task of establishing ethical culture not only involve management but also oversight by the board, or the audit committee, or a separate risk committee? Guidelines require board and/or board committee oversight. Relevant to these issues, also click on the following link for a May 2019 post that I wrote about the new DOJ guidelines https://wp.me/p75iWX-fc

Ms. Cherepanova lists some good key areas to measure or audit. It is possible to add additional key areas, and additional criteria can be added to the five areas that the blog post identifies. I’m not being critical of the five key areas that are listed, instead, I am merely pointing out that there is lack of agreement on the key areas to include in the measurement or audit process. Certainly at least DOJ and court case guidance should be consulted. It should also be added, for example, the establishment of a robust anonymous reporting process, and related investigation processes. In addition to others, you should also consult legal counsel for additional guidance. Consider using a team approach as these topics can require input from attorneys and other professionals who have backgrounds in a multitude of different areas.

Ms. Cherepanova’s post raises many additional issues, in fact too many to cover in this post. Under Leadership and Accountability, for example, does or will the alleged wrongdoer’s stature or status within the organization impact the investigation and/or the resulting discipline, if any? These can be difficult questions. Whereas one might argue that stature or status should not be relevant criteria, the severity of disciplinary measures can both positively and negatively impact an organization when a key member of the organization is involved.

My view has been and remains that organizational culture and ethical culture are here to stay as significant or at least relevant organizational issues.

—————————————————————

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 website. 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.

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

I am also the new 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, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

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 other summary materials that you might find useful:

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

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

Updated Mediation and Dispute Resolution Questionnaire Attached

Greetings all. I have updated my mediation and dispute resolution questionnaire, which is a document that I wrote and use to obtain information that is helpful to facilitate dispute and case settlement. Click on the following link for the pdf, and go ahead and use the questionnaire and pass it to other people as you wish. Thank you. David Tate

Here is the link for the questionnaire: Mediation and Dispute Resolution Questionnaire, David Tate, Esq. 07302017

Here is a link to the Royse Law Firm, PC http://rroyselaw.com/

Comments re post by Norman Marks – internal audit and ERM accused of failing to hit the mark – discussion about management, boards and audit committees – David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm

I have provided below a link to a post by Norman Marks, in which Norman discusses and in part compares or contrasts internal audit and ERM. Norman’s post is a good, worthwhile read.

There are many good writers on these topics – you will also note that there are disagreements between knowledgeable professionals. Just for example, as Norman notes, ERM or enterprise risk management is a management function (I would say a management, board and audit committee function) whereas internal audit is independent; however, there has been for sometime considerable discussion about the role of internal audit and whether it can be or should be or has been expanded in ways that could make it less independent or less of an audit function and more of an advisory function in some circumstances – internal audit endeavors to make itself more valuable and needed as a function and department.

I don’t get into the discussions about whether internal audit should or should not be less independent or more advisory – instead, if internal audit is not being sufficiently utilized I primarily attribute that to one or both of two reasons which can be interrelated: (1) either internal audit needs to do a better job selling to management, the board and the audit committee how internal audit can help, or (2) particularly the board and the audit committee need to be more educated or convinced about how internal audit can help them to satisfy their oversight duties and responsibilities (I can help you with reason (2)).

If you are interested in risk management and enterprise risk management you are aware that COSO is still updating its ERM framework. If you aren’t interested in risk management or ERM but you are a board and/or audit committee member you definitely should be interested as it or parts of it are part of your oversight duties and responsibilities.

COSO has said that its updated ERM function should be out mid-2017, in other words, soon. This is a big deal. Whereas risk management professionals will extensively evaluate and comment about the new framework from an ERM perspective, and although I am also a CPA, I will primarily evaluate the framework from a legal perspective and what the new framework will or may require of management, the board and the audit committee in satisfaction of their duties and responsibilities. Add to this the COSO 2013 updated internal control framework, and the changes that are being made to audit procedures and the audit report, in addition to increasing disclosures about events, practices and procedures not just numbers, and you have a significantly changing environment in terms of management, board and audit committee duties and responsibilities.

That’s all for now. Below is the link to Norman Marks’ new blog post – read his post – it covers more about internal audit and ERM than the title indicates. David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm (see below for firm practice areas), Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. The following is a link to my other blog, about trust, estate, and elder, etc., disputes, litigation and difficult or contentious administrations: http://californiaestatetrust.com.

Here is the link to Norman’s post:  https://normanmarks.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/internal-audit-and-erm-accused-of-failing-to-hit-the-mark/

David Tate, Esq. (and CPA, California inactive). Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park Office, California (with offices in both northern and southern California).

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin, http://rroyselaw.com/

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Disputes and Litigation (I broke out these areas because they are my primary areas of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Financial & Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Lender/Debtor, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, Etc., and Contentious Administrations
  •             Dispute Resolution and Mediation
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

PCAOB Adopts New Audit Report-Should Be Interesting-Still Has To Be Adopted By The SEC

The following is a link to the PCAOB website page discussing the PCAOB’s June 2017 adoption of a new audit report which in part requires the disclosure of critical audit matters (CAM) for certain audits conducted under PCAOB standards. Here’s the link to the PCAOB page CLICK HERE

The new report standard still must be adopted by the SEC. If adopted, some of the new report standards will first apply to annual audits for years ending on or after December 15, 2017; however, the critical audit matter reporting would not apply until 2019 at the earliest for certain entities.

As the PCAOB notes, there is a need to make the audit report more relevant. In fact, there is a need to make both external and internal audit and auditors more relevant.

More will follow on this; however, I usually don’t spend signification time on new laws, statutes, regulations, rules and standards until (1) they are in fact enacted or adopted, and (2) it is near the time of actual use or requirement.

I do note, however, that this new report and the CAM provision is an interesting development, which perhaps should have occurred years ago. If you click on the above link, and then on the actual standard itself, you will also see that the standard contains worthwhile discussions about critical audit matters, materiality and other topics that are relevant to the standard.

Best, David Tate, Esq. (and CPA, California inactive). Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park Office, California.

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation because this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Financial & Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Lender/Debtor, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, Etc., and Contentious Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

 

Important – SEC v. United – Administrative Proceeding Relating to United’s Internal Accounting Controls to Prevent Violation of United’s Policies

On December 2, 2016, the SEC issued an Accounting and Auditing Enforcement, Administrative Proceeding Order against United Continental Holdings, Inc. Here is a link to the Order, CLICK HERE

Why is this Order important – because the SEC found that “United failed to design and maintain a system of internal accounting controls that was sufficient to prevent its officers from approving the use of United’s assets in connection with the South Carolina Route in violation of United’s Policies, which prohibited the use of assets for corrupt purposes.” This isn’t a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case – the alleged corruption or impropriety occurred in the United States. The SEC alleged that United “instituted the South Carolina Route following pressure from David Samson (“Samson”), then the Chairman of he Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”). The route provided Samson – who exercised authority and influence as a Port Authority official in matters affecting United’s business interests – with a more direct route to his house in South Carolina.”

The scenario in this case could occur at any time that a public company (1) allegedly acts improperly, and (2) it is alleged that the act was allowed or able to occur because of insufficient internal controls (resulting in a violation of the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, which is automatically alleged in a great number of cases because it is easy in most situations to allege that something unexpected occurred because of inadequate internal controls), and (3) the alleged improper act also allegedly violates some policy or procedure of the public company (i.e., in this case to not use corporate assets for an allegedly corrupt or improper purpose).

What can a company (and the audit committee) do about these possible situations? Review the company’s policies and procedures, and adopt and enact sufficient internal controls, monitored and updated regularly, to ensure that the policies and procedures are followed. But, of course, it is difficult and probably impossible to ensure 100% compliance. I have previously written that the books and records and internal accounting controls provision in the Securities Exchange Act should be amended to include a standard of conduct provision (such as negligence) because it is unreasonable to expect that internal controls, no matter how good, will stop all alleged wrongful conduct.

Below is a screenshot of some of the SEC v. United Order, providing a summary of some of the facts, and I have also included below a link to Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California

sec-v-united-continental-holdings

The following is a link to Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 20, 2016), Click Here

The following is a link to my trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse litigation blog, http://californiaestatetrust.com

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

 

Why do so many practitioners misunderstand risk? Forwarding post by Norman Marks

The following is a link to a new post by Norman Marks, https://normanmarks.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/why-do-so-many-practitioners-misunderstand-risk/ , Why do so many practitioners misunderstand risk? See also the link to “A Revolution in Risk Management” which is provided in Norman’s post. This is a good, i.e., worthwhile, post and discussion – the point being, I believe, is to not be too singularly focused in your evaluation of risks and risk management. I also like Norman’s use of the tree to visually demonstrate the discussion.

Best to you, Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California. Link for Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide http://wp.me/p75iWX-6z