The California business judgment rule statutes for corporations, nonprofits, and religious organizations, for your ease of reading and reference

For your ease of reading and reference, the following are the California business judgment rule statutes for:

Corporations – Cal. Corp. Code §309;

Nonprofit public benefit corporations – Cal. Corp. Code §5231;

Nonprofit mutual benefit corporations – Cal. Corp. Code §7231 (and see also §7231.5); and

Nonprofit religious corporations – Cal. Corp. Code §9241 (and see also §9240(c)).

The business judgment rule is state specific – see, for example, Del. Gen. Corp. Law §141 for Delaware corporations, in addition to relevant case law.

Also note that the statutory business judgment rule differs some for corporations, nonprofit public benefit corporations, nonprofit mutual benefit corporations, and nonprofit religious corporations.

Why am I posting this information? Because the business judgment rule is a good rule for people to follow, and to consider, in public company, private business, nonprofit organization, and governmental entity settings and situations. And in this context, when I refer to “people,” I am not referring only to directors, but also to officers, managers and all people throughout the organization. Note: I am not representing that all of these people are legally required to follow the business judgment rule – indeed, the rule is merely a possible defense to liability and possibly relevant to the burden of proof for the people to which it applies and who fact follow the rule – for other people, in the context of this post I am merely suggesting that all people should consider following the rule, or at least keep it in mind as possible guidance in a multitude of public company, private business, nonprofit organization, and governmental entity settings and situations.

Also note that I underlined the provisions below that are underlined (that is, the wording below that is underlined is not underlined in the actual statute).

California Corporations Code Section 309, for corporations:

(a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.

(b) In performing the duties of a director, a director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by any of the following:

(1) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented.

(2) Counsel, independent accountants or other persons as to matters which the director believes to be within such person’s professional or expert competence.

(3) A committee of the board upon which the director does not serve, as to matters within its designated authority, which committee the director believes to merit confidence, so long as, in any such case, the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry when the need therefor is indicated by the circumstances and without knowledge that would cause such reliance to be unwarranted.

(c) A person who performs the duties of a director in accordance with subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have no liability based upon any alleged failure to discharge the person’s obligations as a director. In addition, the liability of a director for monetary damages may be eliminated or limited in a corporation’s articles to the extent provided in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 204.

(Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1203, Sec. 2. Effective September 27, 1987.)

California Corporations Code Section 5231, for nonprofit public benefit corporations:

(a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner that director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.

(b) In performing the duties of a director, a director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by:

(1) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;

(2) Counsel, independent accountants or other persons as to matters which the director believes to be within that person’s professional or expert competence; or

(3) A committee upon which the director does not serve that is composed exclusively of any or any combination of directors, persons described in paragraph (1), or persons described in paragraph (2), as to matters within the committee’s designated authority, which committee the director believes to merit confidence, so long as, in any case, the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry when the need therefor is indicated by the circumstances and without knowledge that would cause that reliance to be unwarranted.

(c) Except as provided in Section 5233, a person who performs the duties of a director in accordance with subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have no liability based upon any alleged failure to discharge the person’s obligations as a director, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any actions or omissions which exceed or defeat a public or charitable purpose to which a corporation, or assets held by it, are dedicated.

(Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 631, Sec. 14. (AB 1233) Effective January 1, 2010.)

California Corporations Code Section 7231, for nonprofit mutual benefit corporations:

(a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.

(b) In performing the duties of a director, a director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by:

(1) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;

(2) Counsel, independent accountants or other persons as to matters which the director believes to be within such person’s professional or expert competence; or

(3) A committee upon which the director does not serve that is composed exclusively of any or any combination of directors, persons described in paragraph (1), or persons described in paragraph (2), as to matters within the committee’s designated authority, which committee the director believes to merit confidence, so long as, in any case, the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry when the need therefor is indicated by the circumstances and without knowledge that would cause such reliance to be unwarranted.

(c) A person who performs the duties of a director in accordance with subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have no liability based upon any alleged failure to discharge the person’s obligations as a director, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any actions or omissions which exceed or defeat a public or charitable purpose to which assets held by a corporation are dedicated.

(Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 631, Sec. 24. (AB 1233) Effective January 1, 2010.)

See also Cal. Corp. Code §7231.5:

(a) Except as provided in Section 7233 or 7236, there is no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any volunteer director or volunteer executive officer of a nonprofit corporation subject to this part based upon any alleged failure to discharge the person’s duties as a director or officer if the duties are performed in a manner that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The duties are performed in good faith.

(2) The duties are performed in a manner such director or officer believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.

(3) The duties are performed with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.

(b) “Volunteer” means the rendering of services without compensation. “Compensation” means remuneration whether by way of salary, fee, or other consideration for services rendered. However, the payment of per diem, mileage, or other reimbursement expenses to a director or executive officer does not affect that person’s status as a volunteer within the meaning of this section.

(c) “Executive officer” means the president, vice president, secretary, or treasurer of a corporation or other individual serving in like capacity who assists in establishing the policy of the corporation.

(d) This section shall apply only to trade, professional, and labor organizations incorporated pursuant to this part which operate exclusively for fraternal, educational, and other nonprofit purposes, and under the provisions of Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

(e) This section shall not be construed to limit the provisions of Section 7231.

(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 107, Sec. 5.)

California Corporations Code Section 9241, for nonprofit religious corporations:

(a) A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as is appropriate under the circumstances.

(b) In performing the duties of a director, a director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by:

(1) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;

(2) Counsel, independent accountants, or other persons as to matters which the director believes to be within that person’s professional or expert competence;

(3) A committee upon which the director does not serve that is composed exclusively of any or any combination of directors, persons described in paragraph (1), or persons described in paragraph (2), as to matters within the committee’s designated authority, which committee the director believes to merit confidence; or

(4) Religious authorities and ministers, priests, rabbis, or other persons whose position or duties in the religious organization the director believes justify reliance and confidence and whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented, so long as, in any case, the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry when the need therefor is indicated by the circumstances, and without knowledge that would cause that reliance to be unwarranted.

(c) The provisions of this section, and not Section 9243, shall govern any action or omission of a director in regard to the compensation of directors, as directors or officers, or any loan of money or property to or guaranty of the obligation of any director or officer. No obligation, otherwise valid, shall be voidable merely because directors who benefited by a board resolution to pay such compensation or to make such loan or guaranty participated in making such board resolution.

(d) Except as provided in Section 9243, a person who performs the duties of a director in accordance with subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have no liability based upon any alleged failure to discharge his or her obligations as a director, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any actions or omissions which exceed or defeat any purpose to which the corporation, or assets held by it, may be dedicated.

(Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 631, Sec. 33. (AB 1233) Effective January 1, 2010.)

See also Cal. Corp. Code §9240(c):

(c) A director, in making a good faith determination, may consider what the director believes to be:

(1) The religious purposes of the corporation; and

(2) Applicable religious tenets, canons, laws, policies, and authority.

(Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 923, Sec. 1.4. Operative January 1, 1988, by Sec. 103 of Ch. 923.)

—————————————————————

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

 

Just a snapshot of the NASDAQ ESG Reporting Guide 2.0 ESG Metrics

Below is a snapshot of the NASDAQ ESG metrics from the May 2019 NASDAQ ESG Reporting Guide 2.0. Pursuant to the Guide, the metrics were significantly developed or decided upon based on existing United Nations ESG materials. Viewing ESG from a worldwide perspective, focusing more significantly on metrics that are contained in United Nations materials could be one reasonable approach. However, from a US listed company perspective, I would have kept some of those metrics, and replaced some with other metrics that are perhaps more pertinent and diverse. As the Guide states, the metrics that NASDAQ selected are not required or mandated metrics.

There is the snapshot:

—————————————————————

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

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:

* * * * *

D&O Compass/ISS – Trends in Director Skill Sets – Starting to Include culture/HR, CSR or ESG . . . Non-Financial Skills

I found the following interesting from D&O Compass, as reported by Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. – perhaps desired director skill sets are including or starting to include culture or HR, corporate social responsibility or ESG, and other non-financial skills and backgrounds.

But I am a bit curious about one of the comments: “. . . there is an ongoing director-level shift away from ‘traditional’ skills such as financial expertise, audit expertise, and CEO experience.” I would argue, however, that financial expertise, audit expertise, and CEO experience also can relate and be pertinent to culture or HR, corporate social responsibility, and ESG.

In fact, as you might know from my other posts and materials, it is not uncommon for the audit committee to be delegated initial risk management oversight (although in my view overall oversight of risk management remains as a board responsibility), and it has been my view that culture, corporate social responsibility and ESG, including governance, offer potential opportunities for internal audit and external audit to provide new and enhanced value-added services that could be helpful to management including executive management, the board, and audit or risk committees, and that those services could also benefit the organization as a whole and the shareholders. Please excuse the less-than-fantastic quality of the D&O Compass materials, as that was the best that could be done. Best to you, David Tate, Esq., San Francisco/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 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:

* * * * *

 

New April 2019, DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs – the word risk is used 49 times, the board 11 times, and the audit committee 2 times

I have provided below a link to the new 19-page, April 2019, DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance. Obviously a tremendous number of law firms will be discussing and advising about this new guidance. I note that the term risk management is used only once in the document but the word risk or words associated with risk are used 49 times, board or board of directors are used 11 times, and audit committee is used twice. With respect to boards or boards of directors, and audit committees, the guidance is looking for oversight by a source that is autonomous from management, and for there to be a means to allow (or encourage) reporting to a source that is autonomous from management. But in that regard I note that autonomy from management can be a complicated issue as some board members might be involved in management, and other board members, although independent from management, might have conflicts or might not truly be independent such as because of relationships, or perceived alliances, influences, or pressures, or other possible situations.

Click on the following link for the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance: DOJ – Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs April 2019, 

Every case and situation is different. 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.

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

* * * * *

New COSO ERM Framework – Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance; COSO 2013 Internal Control Framework; the Business Judgment Rule

You may have heard or seen that the new COSO ERM Framework is out as of a day or two ago – Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance. This is a project that COSO announced on October 21, 2014, so it is a longtime in the works. The original (first) framework was issued in 2004. Below I have provided the bare bones outline for the new ERM Framework, in addition to the bare bones outline for the COSO 2013 Internal Control Framework, and a summary of the business judgment rule. Why did I provide all three? Because for boards and audit committees, and for business entities and their executive officers, and sometimes for the employees also, all three are, or should be, tied together.

I will be commenting about and outlining the ERM Framework in detail in later posts (after I have had time to evaluate the detailed materials, and discuss them with colleagues). For now, all I can give you is the outline below. I do note – and I’m not being negative about this – that I have some concern that the five concepts and twenty principles, with the detail added, might be a lot for some small and mid-sized business entities, nonprofits and governmental entities to handle. But it is what it is. And as you may know, although it is now recognized that boards are responsible for oversight of risk management, many audit committees are responsible for risk management oversight pursuant to statute, regulation, or exchange requirements, and a typical audit committee charter lists oversight of risk management as an area of responsibility, generally there is no legally required or mandated risk management framework or process, although some industries (such as banks, for example) are heavily regulated for risk management purposes. It is possible that the new COSO ERM Framework will become the accepted framework to follow, although other frameworks do exist.

COSO (the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) is a private sector initiative, jointly sponsored and funded by the American Accounting Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Financial Executives International, Institute of Management Accountants, and The Institute of Internal Auditors.

The new COSO ERM Framework is organized into five interrelated primary or core components, which are supported by a set of twenty principles. The following is a broad outline of the five components and twenty principles. And as I stated above, in later posts I will be adding considerable detail. Below I have also provided an outline for the COSO 2013 Internal Control Framework, and a discussion about the business judgment rule.

Thanks for reading. David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park office, with offices in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles

 

COSO ERM Framework – Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance (five components, and twenty principles)

I.  Governance and Culture Component:

Supporting Principles:

  1. Exercises Board Risk Oversight
  2. Establishes Operating Structures
  3. Defines Desired Culture
  4. Demonstrates Commitment to Core Values
  5. Attracts, Develops, and Retains Capable Individuals

II.  Strategy and Objective-Setting Component:

  1. Analyzes Business Context
  2. Defines Risk Appetite
  3. Evaluates Alternative Strategies
  4. Formulates Business Objectives

III.  Performance Component:

  1. Identifies Risk
  2. Assesses Severity of Risk
  3. Prioritizes Risks
  4. Implements Risk Responses
  5. Develops Portfolio View

IV.  Review and Revision Component:

  1. Assesses Substantial Change
  2. Reviews Risk and Performance
  3. Pursues Improvement in Enterprise Risk Management

V.  Information, Communication, and Reporting Component:

  1. Leverages Information and Technology
  2. Communicates Risk Information
  3. Reports on Risk, Culture, and Performance

 

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and internal controls work together and should complement each other. The following is the broad outline of the COSO 2013 Internal Control Framework.

Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 requires public company management and its external auditors to attest to the design and operating effectiveness of a company’s internal control over external financial reporting. Internal controls should also be designed and implemented for private company, nonprofit and governmental entities.

COSO 2013 Internal Control Framework – 5 Components, and 17 Principles

1.  Control Environment Component:

Mandatory Principles

  1. Demonstrate commitment to integrity and ethical values.
  2. Board of directors demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight of the development and performance of internal control.
  3. Management establishes, with board oversight, structures and reporting lines and appropriate authorities and responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives.
  4. Demonstrate commitment to attract, develop and retain competent individuals in alignment with objectives.
  5. Hold individuals accountable for their internal control responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives.

2.  Risk Assessment Component:

Mandatory Principles

  1. Specify objectives with sufficient clarity to enable the identification and assessment of risks relating to objectives.
  2. Identify risks to the achievement of its objectives across the entity and analyze risks as a basis for determining how the risks should be managed.
  3. Consider the potential for fraud in assessing risks to the achievement of objectives.
  4. Identify and assess changes that could significantly impact the system of internal control.

3.  Control Activities Component:

Mandatory Principles

  1. Select and develop control activities that contribute to the mitigation of risks to the achievement of objectives and acceptable levels.
  2. Select and develop general control activities over technology to support the achievement of objectives.
  3. Deploy control activities through policies that establish what is expected and procedures that put policies into action.

4.  Information & Communication Component:

Mandatory Principles

  1. Obtain or generate and use relevant, quality information to support the functioning of internal control.
  2. Internally communicate information, including objectives and responsibilities for internal control, necessary to support the functioning of internal control.
  3. Communicate with external parties regarding matters affecting the functioning of internal control.

5.  Monitoring Activities Component:

Mandatory Principles

  1. Select, develop and perform ongoing and/or separate evaluations to ascertain whether the components of internal control are present and functioning.
  2. Evaluate and communicate internal control deficiencies in a timely manner to those parties responsible for taking corrective action, including senior management and the board of directors, as appropriate.

 

The Business Judgment Rule

The business judgment rule also is relevant on these topics (from Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide). The business judgment rule provides a director with a defense to personal liability, holding that as a general principle of law, a director, including a director who serves as a member of a board committee, who satisfies the business judgment rule has satisfied his or her duties. Thus, the business judgment rule provides one standard of care, although other standards may very well also apply to specific tasks and responsibilities. The business judgment rule provides a very good overall approach for directors and audit committee members to follow, although the rule itself is lacking in specific detail. In some states the business judgment rule is codified by statute while in other states the rule is established by case law (see, i.e., Cal. Corp. Code §309 for California corporations, Del. Gen. Corp. Law §141 for Delaware corporations, in addition to relevant case law). The rule also applies to directors as board committee members.

The Business Judgment Rule

In summary, as a general principle the business judgment rule provides that a director should undertake his or her duties:

-In good faith, with honesty and without self-dealing, conflict or improper personal benefit;

-In a manner that the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders; and

-With the care, including reasonable inquiry, that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position with like expertise would use under similar circumstances. The rule itself doesn’t require a particular level of expertise, knowledge or understanding; however, as you might be aware, public company audit committee members do have such a requirement, and you can at least argue that, depending on the facts and circumstances, a board or committee member should have or should obtain a certain unspecified level of knowledge or understanding to be sufficiently prepared to ask questions, evaluate information provided, and make decisions.

Reliance Upon Other People Under the Business Judgment Rule

In the course and scope of performing his or her duties, a director must necessarily obtain information from and rely upon other people. An independent director is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business. The director provides an oversight function. Pursuant to the business judgment rule, a director is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, prepared or presented by any of the following:

-Officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the relevant matters;

-Legal counsel, independent accountants or other persons as to matters that the director reasonably believes are within the person’s professional or expert competence; or

-A committee of the board on which the director does not serve, as to matters within that committee’s designated authority, so long as the director acts in good faith, after reasonable inquiry as warranted by the circumstances, and without knowledge that would cause reliance to be unwarranted.

That’s it for now. Thanks for reading. Much, much more to come on these topics. David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park office, with offices in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles

* * * * *

Jail for Officers’ Alleged Failure to Ensure Food Product Safety

The new Eighth Circuit decision in U.S. v. DeCoster, discussing the responsible corporate officer doctrine, is an important case for corporate officers, managing agents and board members as the Eighth Circuit upheld jail time for the corporate officers’ alleged failure to ensure the safety of food that was sold to the public (i.e., egg safety, and salmonella).

In addition to typical criminal wrongdoing, for some time corporate and corporate officer criminal punishment, including jail time, has been expanded to include situations of environmental contamination (representing potentially an injury to the environment and also to public health).

The DeCoster case reflects a continuing march toward expanding possible corporate and corporate officer criminal punishment, including jail time, for injury to public physical health (in this case, food safety), even when there is a lack of evidence of the corporate officer’s actual and direct wrongdoing. In summary, in these cases the criminal wrongdoing arises from the corporate officer’s executive or managing agent status or standing and authority, and his or her alleged failure to sufficiently ensure the safety of the product (food) that is sold by the corporation or business to the general public. The following is a link to a good discussion of the case on the D & O Diary, CLICK HERE.  Obviously the implications are important for general public product and service providers, particularly those that offer products or services that could cause or involve a resulting injury to the physical health of the public.

Best, Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)