Board understanding of culture and mood are pretty low – per NACD materials

Below I have provided a snapshot from NACD promotional materials that I received – the materials are Benchmark Your Board, with which I tend to agree, if the benchmark evaluation is done with meaningful detail, evaluation, and recommendations, and if the board then takes action to improve the board, and all levels of the organization. I find all of the statistics from the materials (see below) of interest; however, for the purpose of this blog post I am focused on the corporate culture section – earlier this year corporate or business or nonprofit or organization culture was heavily in the news, but these things tend to pass.

I don’t hear as much about culture now. But in my view, culture and values need to stay in the news as they are one of the keys to how the entity (i.e., the people in the entity) act or behave, and perform.

Notice, according to the materials, 87% of directors say that their boards have a high understanding of the tone at the top, but is that true and what does that really mean; only 35% of directors say that their boards understand the mood in the middle, whatever that means, but nevertheless, the percentage is very low; and only 18% have a high understanding of the buzz at the bottom, again whatever that means, but the percentage is very low. These seem like failing grades, evidencing, in addition to other things, that board members need get out and visit and mingle at the facilities more.

NACD Benchmark Your Board promotion stat. page

And here are additional materials from prior posts:

Organization Culture Compass Circle

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

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA), Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California.  My blogs: trust, estate, elder abuse and conservatorship litigation http://californiaestatetrust.com, D&O, boards, audit committees, governance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, workplace http://workplacelawreport.com

David Tate, Esq., Overview of My Practice Areas (Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com)

  • Civil Litigation: business, commercial, real estate, D&O, board and committee, founder, owner, investor, creditor, shareholder, M&A, and other disputes and litigation; and investigations
  • Probate Court Litigation: trust, estate, elder abuse, and conservatorship disputes and litigation
  • Administration: trust and estate administration and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries
  • Workplace (including discrimination) litigation and consulting
  • Board, director, committee and audit committee, and executive officer responsibilities and rights; and investigations

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

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

Disclaimer. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside or outside of California, and also does not provide legal or other professional advice to you or to anyone else, or about a specific situation – remember that laws are always changing – and also remember and be aware that you need to consult with an appropriate lawyer or other professional about your situation. This post also is not intended to and does not apply to any particular situation or person, nor does it provide and is not intended to provide any opinion or any other comments that in any manner state, suggest or imply that anyone or any entity has done anything unlawful, wrong or wrongful – instead, each situation must be fully evaluated with all of the evidence, whereas this post only includes summary comments about information that may or may not be accurate and that most likely will change over time.

Advertisements

Elon Musk / Tesla – purported SEC settlement, but corporate governance and board member judicial independence questions also remain

To say the least, it must have been a stressful couple of months for Tesla board members – how do you get your undisputed CEO leader and visionary to control himself, to take care of his mental and physical health, stop doing stupid or ill-advised things and making stupid or ill-advised public communications, and stop causing self-inflicted wounds? Or, at this point, how much do you need Mr. Musk to be the CEO of Tesla – can’t some other person take the helm – someone who is better qualified to build cars, and who also is an electric/battery power visionary? And where was the board in all of this? Well . . . we don’t know because they were silent to the public.  

You might have heard the news that the SEC filed suit against Mr. Musk last week as a result of an ill-advised and possibly unlawful public comment that he made. Yesterday (Saturday) I read two articles about possible settlement or actual settlement with the SEC. The following earlier-in-the-day article represents that Mr. Musk had rejected a settlement offer made by the SEC.  But please be aware that I never simply accept a news or other article as being correct – the article might be correct, or some of it might be correct, or none of it might be correct, you can be reasonably certain that the article is not entirely complete, and I also watch for the adjectives used and the opinions and conclusions reached as opposed to facts and whether or not those facts are supported with objective, credible evidence and sources. Thus, although I am using articles below, I am not representing or suggesting that they are correct or entirely correct. 

I found the first, earlier-in-the-day article interesting because of its discussion about the terms (presumably only some of the terms) of settlement purportedly offered by the SEC, and more interesting for the purported reasons why the settlement offer was rejected. The reasons for rejection, for example, do not include whether or not acceptance of the settlement would be in the best interests of Tesla and its stockholders. The reasons suggest that the settlement was rejected based on reasons personal to Mr. Musk, the reasons suggest a desire to maintain and not lose board control, and the reasons suggest a lack of board member involvement in whether or not the settlement should be accepted, and a lack of board member active diligent governance, oversight, and independence. Of course, obviously there are additional facts about which we are not aware.

In terms of board member independence, I am talking about possible lack of judicial independence, not independence as defined by stock exchange or similar rules, or whether or not the board member is an officer of Tesla. Board member judicial independence is an evolving and increasingly important attribute and evaluation – for example, does the board member truly diligently and prudently evaluate the issues at hand in the best interests of the stockholders and the company, and make decisions that are independent of the director’s self interests and independent of the director’s relationships with the executive officers and with the other directors. As you might be aware, judicial independence, for example, also takes into consideration business, financial, social, family, and friend interactions, relationships, and influences or pressures.

The following is the earlier-in-the-day article representing that settlement with the SEC was rejected and at least some of the purported reasons for the possible rejection – see a picture from the earlier-in-the-day first article below or  Click Here For Article

Musk reportedly doesn't settle with SEC

A later-in-the-day article then represented that settlement with the SEC had been accepted, and at least some of the purported terms of the settlement. I would view acceptance of the purported settlement as a good decision in the right direction for Tesla and its stockholders, and also for Mr. Musk. I will be interested in hearing who the two new directors will be, the process for and who nominates/selects the new directors and what Mr. Musk’s involvement will be in that process, and who the independent directors will be and whether they will be and are judicially independent as they should be judicially independent after taking into consideration that matters, issues and people over which they will have specific oversight and responsibility. See a picture from the later-in-the-day second article below or Click Here For Article

Musk reportedly settles with the SEC

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA), Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California.  My blogs: trust, estate, elder abuse and conservatorship litigation http://californiaestatetrust.com, D&O, boards, audit committees, governance, etc. http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, workplace http://workplacelawreport.com

David Tate, Esq., Overview of My Practice Areas (Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com)

  • Civil Litigation: business, commercial, real estate, D&O, board and committee, founder, owner, investor, creditor, shareholder, M&A, and other disputes and litigation; and investigations
  • Probate Court Litigation: trust, estate, elder abuse, and conservatorship disputes and litigation
  • Administration: trust and estate administration and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries
  • Workplace (including discrimination) litigation and consulting
  • Board, director, committee and audit committee, and executive officer responsibilities and rights; and investigations

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

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

Disclaimer. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside or outside of California, and also does not provide legal or other professional advice to you or to anyone else, or about a specific situation – remember that laws are always changing – and also remember and be aware that you need to consult with an appropriate lawyer or other professional about your situation. This post also is not intended to and does not apply to any particular situation or person, nor does it provide and is not intended to provide any opinion or any other comments that in any manner state, suggest or imply that anyone or any entity has done anything unlawful, wrong or wrongful – instead, each situation must be fully evaluated with all of the evidence, whereas this post only includes summary comments about information that may or may not be accurate and that most likely will change over time.

Culture and Governance; The Weinstein Company, Uber, Fox, WFB and Others

Each of the four above listed businesses, and others, have been in the news for issues relating to culture and governance, and other related matters. The legal structures of these four businesses differ significantly, from privately held, to privately held but with high value and reputation venture capital, to publicly held. I have blogged about the new COSO enterprise risk management (ERM) framework, and that the first of the five major components pertains to culture and governance, and the fifth of the five major components pertains to communicating and reporting.

Would the news about these businesses have been different if COSO ERM had been implemented and followed? Perhaps, perhaps not. We might also ask about and evaluate the executive officers; board, board committees and director oversight; the responsibilities of in-house counsel; the actions of the chief compliance officer (if any); how internal audit (if any) might have been helpful; whether issues came or should have come to the attention of the external auditor (including, for example, during the audit planning phase, or even during a more limited review engagement); workplace practices and policies; and perhaps the actions or inactions of the regulatory agencies (if any).

Culture and governance carry with them the potential to affect value (both positive and negative, and for both financial and reputation value), liability, and damages, not only for the business, but, of course, also for victims (and erroneously accused as we have also seen those situations), and for the executive officers and other management, the board and the directors, HR, the chief compliance officer, in-house legal counsel, the chief of internal audit, the partner running the external audit, the employees for their jobs and possible investment and pension holdings, creditors who have loaned money to the business, founders, owners and investors, customers, consumers, and other stakeholders. And these issues apply not only to public and private businesses, but also to nonprofits and governmental entities, and to the people who are involved in and with them.

It isn’t surprising that actions and events occur that are different than reasonably and primarily anticipated (that is the nature of risk management), and that negative and detrimental events also occur, sometimes without legal fault or liability. However, it is somehow also more disappointing to hear that possible or actual problems were known or might have been known to exist for a length of time without being addressed and remedied.

That’s all. I don’t have any personal knowledge about these specific situations other than what I read in the news. And I’m not casting fault, culpability or liability – each situation needs to be internally and/or externally investigated and evaluated by qualified people with the requisite experience, knowledge, demeanor and approach (i.e., objectively and prudently, and where necessary and prudent by people who are independent and without conflict or bias). Often times (practically always) the situations and facts are different (sometimes better, and sometimes worse) than first thought. And then there is always the prospect for litigation to establish responsibilities and rights, liability, causation, damages and remedies including recovery of damages.

We do seem to be seeing an uptick in discussions about the culture and governance of businesses (private, public, and nonprofit) and government – we’ll see if it lasts, and if more specific expectations develop including greater design, implementation and oversight of culture and governance controls.

Please note that the comments in my blog posts are my own, and are not by no one else, and do not apply or related to any particular or specific person, business or other entity, or situation.

* * * * *

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Director (Prudent) Note Taking, Discouraged or Not – Forward From Woodruff-Sawyer and Priya Cherian Huskins With Comments

Here is a link to a good discussion by Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq. at Woodruff-Sawyer about director note taking (not minute taking, but note taking), which can also apply to note taking in general in many situations, CLICK HERE. I agree with Ms. Huskins.

There should be policies and procedures or guidelines to be followed, but a director should be allowed to take notes, and should not be told that he or she cannot take notes. It is a matter of the director performing his or her oversight function in the manner that he or she believes is prudent and necessary. If I was told that as a director or audit committee member that I could not take notes that I thought were necessary and helpful to me and my oversight, I would question that instruction or request, and consider declining the position if it was forced.

Best, Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)