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

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

—————————————————————

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

 

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:

* * * * *

 

MITSloan online tool to measure and compare company cultures – you should be aware – comments and screenshot FYI

This came to my attention – MITSloan online tool to measure and compare company cultures. I have previously written about culture, which, for example, is also an element of the COSO ERM framework, and was considerably in the news in 2018, including at the board level. But as I noted: will culture continue to be in the news, and will executive management and boards really take active interest? Culture also is, or could be a component of ESG.

Now apparently, and coming soon I suspect, proposals for different ways to measure culture. One or possibly two standards that are widely accepted would be helpful. Too many possible standards are not helpful, except to argue that there is no recognized standard. Business leaders, executive management, HR, directors, audit and risk committees, internal and outside auditors, in-house counsel, etc., should take note and be aware.

Regarding internal and outside audit, I have thought for a long time that they could (if they wanted to) become involved in auditing, or in auditing certain aspects or components of or processes relating to culture, governance, risk management, fraud risk, etc. I could argue that the value of internal audit and of outside audit are being passed by others who are taking the lead.

And if you are on a board, or on an audit or risk committee, where you are significantly reliant on other people to report to you, might this type of information be helpful to you in your oversight capacity? I have no explicit knowledge about how MITSloan goes about measuring and comparing company cultures, and I don’t know whether I would consider the criteria and processes that they use to be reliable and helpful; however, might it be interesting to search to see if your company is listed and evaluated? Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco/California

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

When should you take your internal accounting error/mistake or irregularity/fraud investigation outside?

Most every audit committee member, in-house counsel, other board member, CEO, CFO, risk officer, and chief internal auditor will at some time consider whether an accounting related investigation that is being done internally should be taken outside. The decision to stay inside or to go outside isn’t necessarily clear, and there certainly could be differing opinions depending on the facts and circumstances of the situation. The following isn’t a formal or legal discussion, but below are at least some of the factors that I would consider and that you might consider. Every situation is different at least to some extent.

  1. Is there really the expertise in-house to do the investigation? This is an important consideration that I will have more to say about in other posts – however, consider whether it is important for the primary investigator to not only have a legal background in the subject matter, but also accounting or auditing backgrounds. Whereas an accounting or auditing firm might also be retained to assist with the investigation, you might well also find that it would be helpful for the primary investigator to be able to understand the accounting, internal control and auditing or auditor issues, and that the primary investigator might need those backgrounds to better lead the investigation and make decisions or evaluations.
  2. Is there really the time availability to handle the investigation in-house?
  3. Is the dollar amount involved sufficiently large to warrant going outside for the investigation?
  4. Are the qualitative natures of the issues sufficiently important to warrant going outside, such as because of possible public relations, ethics, fraud, or other considerations?
  5. Does it warrant going outside because of the possible people who might be interviewed, questioned or involved including their office or stature in the organization, and their relationships with the people who are investigating, the board, the audit committee, the executive officers and other people?
  6. For whatever reasons, is it warranted or required that the investigation be independent, or more independent in nature.
  7. If the initial investigation began in-house (which is entirely possible), has it for whatever reason now become more prudent to go outside?

That’s it for now. Just some thoughts. I’m sure that you can come up with additional thoughts – the above discussion isn’t all encompassing.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)

DTatePicture_Square

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-10202016-final-with-appendix-a

sec-whistleblower-awards

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

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):

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

DTatePicture_Square

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)