A Simple Risk (And Uncertainty) Management Process (Slide)

Posted on March 5, 2021 by David Tate, Esq.

I have provided below a jpg of my simple risk and uncertainty management process slide – a sample ten-point process – or for a more clear picture click on the download link below.

a-sample-risk-management-and-erm-process-slide-03042021-1 Download

Best to you. David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

——————————————————————–

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are:

Business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

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

Litigation, Disputes, Mediator & Governance: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Workplace, Investigations, Other Areas

A simple nine point risk management and ERM process – a short video

Posted on September 18, 2020 by David Tate, Esq.

Below I have provided a link to a short video on youtube in which I discuss a simple nine point risk management and ERM process. Please do feel free to also pass this information to anyone else who might be interested.

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

———————————————————————-

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

Litigation, Disputes & Mediator: Business, Trust/Probate, Real Property, Governance, Elder Abuse, Investigations, Other Areas

Blogs:

Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com

Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance and governance committee, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Trust, Estate, Probate Court, Elder and Dependent Adult, and Disability Disputes and Litigation

- - Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries, beneficiaries and families; elder abuse; power of attorney disputes; elder care and nursing home abuse; conservatorships; claims to real and personal property; and other related disputes and litigation.

Business, Business-Related, and Workplace Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; Nonprofit Entities; and Governmental Entities

- - Business v. business disputes including breach of contract; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; unfair competition; licensing agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; etc.
  - Misappropriation of trade secrets.
  - M&A disputes.
  - Founder, officer, director and board, investor, shareholder, creditor, VC, control, governance, decision making, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, independence, voting, etc., disputes.
  - Buy-sell disputes.
  - Funding and share dilution disputes.
  - Accounting, lost profits, and royalty disputes and damages.
  - Insurance coverage and bad faith.
  - Access to corporate and business records disputes.
  - Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations, Governance, and Responsibilities and Rights

- - Corporate, business, nonprofit and governmental internal investigations.
  - Board, audit committee, governance committee, and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.; and advising audit committees, governance committees, officers, directors, and boards.

Mediator Services and Conflict Resolution

* * * * *

Forwarding two posts by Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq of Woodruff Sawyer: Delaware Supreme Court in Marchand discusses board-level monitoring, and director independence

Posted on October 6, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

I am forwarding two posts by Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq. of Woodruff Sawyer – Ms. Huskins’ posts highlight recent Delaware Supreme Court holdings in Marchand which are or should be important considerations for all boards and board committees.

In the post immediately below (click the link) Ms. Huskins discusses the court’s holding that the board (and its committees) must have monitoring processes in place. As an example, whereas it is a management responsibility to design, implement, monitor, and update risk management (or ERM) and compliance processes, and it is often said that it is the responsibility of the board (or of a committee of the board in conjunction with the board) to oversee that management has done so (i.e., a duty to oversee), Marchand makes it clear that the board/board committee oversight responsibility is an active and diligent oversight responsibility and that the board/board committee must also itself have oversight processes in place – both management and the board/board committee must design, implement, monitor and update processes to satisfy their different responsibilities, and the board/board committee can be found to be in breach of its oversight responsibilities if it fails to do so.

Here is the link to Ms. Huskins’ post pertaining to Marchand and board/board committee oversight and monitoring processes: Delaware Supreme Court Underscores the Importance of Board-Level Monitoring in Marchand (Duty of Loyalty) https://woodruffsawyer.com/do-notebook/board-level-monitoring/

In the second post (click the link below) Ms. Huskins discusses the holding in Marchand pertaining to director independence, and as I often refer to independence as situational independence. You might be aware that whether or not a director is independent in a particular situation can be extremely important as it can impact whether or not the board/board committee has properly performed its responsibilities, the burden of proof or standard that will apply in evaluating whether or not the board/board committee has performed its responsibilities, whether or not the business judgment rule will or might apply, and whether or not the action, decision or vote by the board/board committee in the particular circumstance is valid and enforceable.

The issue of independence is determined by the court on a legal and factual basis depending on the law, facts and admissible evidence in the particular situation. For example, as you might be aware (and you should be aware), when evaluating whether a director is sufficiently independent from the CEO for the purpose of that director making a decision pertaining to that CEO, or when evaluating whether a director is sufficiently independent for the purpose of making a decision pertaining to a control or M&A transaction, or whether a director is sufficiently independent when making a decision pertaining to an evaluation or investigation pertaining to the actions of or an accusation against an executive officer, the courts do in fact also look at not only the direct and extended family relationships and connections between the director and the person(s) involved in or benefiting from the transaction, but also variously can consider their direct and indirect social and business groups, clubs, friends and activities; the co-ownership of assets; and whether the director might feel hesitant to act with independence for any particular reason including, for example, the importance of that directorship to the director, the extent to which the director and the other person(s) have children in the same schools or school classes together, spousal and significant other connections, and other similar relationships and connections, etc.

You get the point – whereas not too many years ago, whether or not a director is sufficiently situational independent was a much less potentially complicated evaluation and issue, those times have changed and are now long gone. Here is the link to Ms. Huskins’ post pertaining to Marchand and the evaluation of director independence: Delaware Supreme Court Further Clarifies Its View of Director Independence in Marchand https://woodruffsawyer.com/do-notebook/delaware-supreme-court-marchand-director-independence/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blog-management-liability

—————————————————————

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:

* * * * *

Does your government’s sustainability policy encourage and support businesses and jobs to start and stay?

Posted on September 22, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

Reading through a few of the local county and California sustainability policy statements, I’m not seeing policies or processes to encourage and support businesses and jobs to start and stay. Without jobs and businesses you lose your economy, people, and tax revenues to other locations. If you lose enough of them, other sustainability efforts will suffer or fail.

Below is an example of one county’s overview of its sustainability policies and efforts. No mention of businesses. Some government sustainability policies do mention businesses; however, in most or many of those circumstances the emphasis is limited to having or forcing the businesses comply with the other sustainability policies and areas – in other words, not an effort to encourage and support businesses and jobs to start and stay.

I have a different view – in addition to the environment, transportation, housing, and other areas, all of which I encourage, a government’s sustainability, ESG, and enterprise risk management (ERM) policies and efforts should specifically include encouraging and supporting businesses and jobs to start and stay.

—————————————————————

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.

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:

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

* * * * *

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

Posted on September 15, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

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.

(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.

(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

(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.)

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

Posted on August 18, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

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.

—————————————————————

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.

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. . . .

Posted on July 30, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

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.

—————————————————————

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.

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 Scott Lenet – Venture Capital Desperately Needs More Governance

Posted on July 1, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

I am forwarding a link to a discussion by Scott Lenet about venture capital desperately needing more governance. I have also provided below a screenshot from part of Scott’s article. And I note of interest that Scott makes a reference to the NACD’s new Directorship Certification program which is starting soon. Here is a link to Scott’s article: Click Here For The Article

And here is a screenshot to part of Scott’s article:

—————————————————-

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.

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:

* * * * *

If California Government, Nonprofits, And Education Are Leaders In ERM, Governance, And ESG, Others Will Follow

Posted on June 30, 2019 by David Tate, Esq.

I ask, what would happen if California government, nonprofits, and education adopted, implemented, and embraced in their operations ERM (enterprise risk management), governance, and ESG (environment, social, and governance) practices, and openly discussed and disclosed their practices? People would notice and follow. For the purpose of this discussion I have noted California government, nonprofits, and education because it seems that at times or for certain issues people who are involved in these activities or positions already are concerned about or are interested in ERM, governance, and ESG. Waiting for public and private businesses, and possibly their auditors, to be induced or possibly compelled into these practices by statute, regulation, or rule is not the only option. Lead and others will follow. For example, we already have criteria or standards for:

– Risk management and ERM (consider as guidance, e.g., materials from COSO (the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission); ISO (the International Organization for Standardization); and other guidance, etc.);

– ESG (consider as guidance, e.g., materials from the SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board); and other guidance, etc.); and

– Governance (consider as guidance, e.g., the above guidance; applicable statutes, regulations and rules; court case precedence; the business judgment rule; and materials from the SEC and the stock exchanges; and other guidance, etc.).

The opportunities and the solutions to move these practices forward already currently are and have been at-hand – California (elected offices and representatives, and departments), nonprofits, and education can lead by example, and others will follow. See also below re ERM and COSO, audit committees, and investigations. Dave Tate, Esq. (and California CPA, inactive). San Francisco and California.

—————————————————-

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.

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:

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

* * * * *

Auditor Inclusion of Critical Audit Matters in Audit Opinion – Center for Audit Quality Release to Help Understanding

Posted on December 18, 2018 by David Tate, Esq.

You might be aware that external auditors are required to include a discussion of critical audit matters in their audit opinion reports for large accelerated filers for audits of fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 2019, and for other public companies for audits of fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2020. I expect that CAMs will in some instances present or cause contentions between the external auditor on the one hand, and the audit committee, board, and executive officers on the other hand.

A Critical Audit Matter or CAM is defined as:

Any matter arising from the audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee: and that:

Relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements; and
Involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

Thus, based on the above definition, simply determining whether a matter is a CAM could be a challenging issue.

For example, in any given audit situation consider:

-What matters were communicated, or were required to be communicated to the audit committee;

-Relating to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements; and

-Involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment?

I will be discussing the good, the bad, the ugly, and the confusing as this upcoming new area of audit opinion report continues to develop. Auditors and audit committees will need to carefully evaluate what to communicate and what is required to be communicated, materiality (qualitative and quantitative), and whether a matter involves especially challenging, subjective, or complex audit judgment.

For additional help with these issues, the following is a link to a June 24, 2018, release by the Center for Audit Quality entitled Critical Audit Matters: Key Concepts and FAQs for Audit Committees, Investors, and other Users of Financial Statements – click on the following link https://www.thecaq.org/critical-audit-matters-key-concepts-and-faqs-audit-committees-investors-and-other-users-financial

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and California inactive CPA)

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: