Tag Archives: director officer liability

Who Evaluates the Chief Audit Executive (CAE)?

Posted on by

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:

who-evaluates-the-cae

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

Posted on by

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):

https://youtu.be/XTSJHpFbz1s

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

DTatePicture_Square

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

Posted on by

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):

https://youtu.be/XTSJHpFbz1s

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

DTatePicture_Square

Updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide – Attached – Use It – Pass It Along – Free

Posted on by

Below is a link to my updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 20, 2016). Please use it, and pass it to other people who would be interested, such as audit committee members, directors, officers, accountants, internal and external auditors, in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and other people.

I do note that as I was updating these materials, and going through the entire Guide, it definitely hit me that all of the specifically enacted statutes, regulations, rules and pronouncements definitely could cause an audit committee member to not be able to see the forest for the tress. So let’s also not forget to look at the situation as a whole.

Although the Guide is 186 pages, I do expect some significant updates soon, and perhaps prior to the end of 2016. Many of the updates will be posted to this blog first, and then to the Guide. I am looking forward to the COSO enterprise risk management (ERM) updated framework.

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

Here is a link to the updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 20, 2016), tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-10202016-final-with-appendix-a

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

The business judgment rule – an animated video:

 

DTatePicture_Square

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

Posted on by

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

DTatePicture_Square

 

Forwarding a worthwhile paper discussing objective based risk management

Posted on by

I am forwarding a link to a short article by Tim Leech and Lauren Hanlon discussing, as they say, Paradigm paralysis in ERM & internal audit. I am providing you with this article because of the discussion between risk management that first and primarily identifies risk, and one that first starts with the objectives of the enterprise, and then follows with the risks to those objectives.

You might also be aware that soon, perhaps next month in September, COSO will be making available its eagerly awaited ERM update, which could be an important development.

Below is the link to the Leech/Hanlon paper (I do also note that they lost me a little with the sample summary report on the second page of the paper – I prefer reports that very easily speak for themselves – but I have found that sometimes professionals with Tim’s experience tend to write in a manner that is not always the most easy or simple to understand). This is a worthwhile paper – please read it.  Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California.

Click to access Risk-Oversight-Solutions-Paradigm-Paralysis-in-ERM-IA-Tim-Leech-Lauren-Hanlon.pdf

Disparate Impact – U.S. Supreme Court – Texas Dept. of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs – Plaintiff Must Establish Causation

Posted on by

This is a bit of a side topic for this blog, but not entirely as it deals with a disparate impact claim, typically made in the context of employment or housing discrimination litigation, but possibly relevant in other areas also. It is useful to keep in mind that in Texas Dept. of Hous & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiff must establish causation. Relevant wording from the Court is as follows:

Disparate Impact - Texas Dept. Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, - U.S. Supreme Court

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

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide, updated January 3, 2016, CLICK HERE FOR THE PDF LINK.

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

DTatePicture_Square

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

Posted on by

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

DTatePicture_Square

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

Posted on by

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,

https://wsandco.com/do-notebook/startup-insurance/

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

 

DTatePicture_Square

Top Ten Mistakes Startups Make – And How To Avoid Them – Royse Law Firm – You’ll Like This Webinar Video

Posted on by

The following is a link to a webinar by the Royse Law Firm about the top 10 mistakes that startups make and how to avoid them. This is an excellent webinar, full of useful information. I view the webinar from a risk management perspective, and from a litigation perspective as mistakes do tend to lead to litigation. Enjoy. Click on the following arrow for the webinar video:

 

Dave Tate, Esq. San Francisco and California. See also 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

DTatePicture_Square