Chart of Accounting Corrections v. Restatements 2005 – 2018 – Questions to be Asked and Investigated

I have attached below at the bottom of his post a snapshot of a chart from a recent CFO Journal showing accounting corrections or revisions v. restatements (compiled, I believe, by Audit Analytics) for the years 2005 – 2018 (for all U.S. public companies, I believe). I have also included in the snapshot just a few of the comments and discussion that were written immediately below the chart. But the point of this post and for providing you with the chart isn’t the change and improvement in the total numbers. Instead, each of these situations, whether correction/revision or restatement raises a whole host of issues, actions and decisions by the executive officers and the audit committee. For example, each such situation and potential situation warrants and requires some manner of an inquiry or investigation either by the audit committee with reporting to and consideration by the board, or inquiry or investigation by the board itself.

Who should do the inquiry and investigation, including possible issues pertaining to what I refer to as situational legal independence?

What legal counsel will be used, who and what will legal counsel represent as counsel’s client(s), who will do the actual inquiry or investigation, what attorney client privilege and work product issues exist and how to best protect them, etc.?

What and who caused the situation (how did it result), also including why did the situation occur at all and why wasn’t the situation caught, or caught earlier or prevented by all who might have been involved who might have noticed including, for example, risk management, processes and procedures; internal controls; governance, culture, tone-at-the-top and possibly workplace issues; the executive officers; internal audit; external independent audit; in-house legal counsel; and other people, possibly also including board and/or audit committee processes and oversight?

Correction/revision v. restatement classification?

Is there an honest mistake, misfeasance, nonfeasance, malfeasance, scienter, etc.?

What is the civil liability exposure to the entity (and possibly to the individuals) and how can it be mitigated?

Is there possible criminal liability exposure at issue? Consideration of DOJ guidelines.

Will or might there be clawback involved?

When and how should the situation be disclosed and reported?

Has or will the entity (or the CEO, CFO, board, audit committee, etc.) suffer a loss of credibility, and how can that be remedied and rehabilitated?

What changes will be implemented so that this situation does not occur again? And how can those changes be tested for efficiency?

What other related shortcomings have been discovered to exist and how will they be remedied?

The entire conduct of the investigation, etc.

And the list of considerations, actions and decision making becomes longer as you drill down.

Below is the chart – it is interesting that the numbers do show improvements:

—————————————————————

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.

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

My law practice primarily involves the following areas and issues:

Probate Court Disputes and Litigation

  • Trust and estate disputes and litigation, and contentious administrations representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries; 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 and Business-Related Disputes and Litigation: Private, Closely Held, and Family Businesses; Public Companies; and Nonprofit 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
  • Access to corporate and business records disputes
  • Employee, employer and workplace disputes and processes, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation, harassment, defamation, etc.

Investigations and Governance

  • Corporate and business internal investigations
  • Board, audit committee and special committee governance and processes, disputes, conflicts of interest, independence, culture, ethics, etc.

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:

* * * * *

AUDIT COMMITTEE SELF-EVALUATION

David W. Tate

Attorney at Law

Certified Public Accountant (inactive California)

Copyright 2019 David W. Tate (however, you are authorized to download and print these materials for your use, and to also pass them to other people who would be interested)

BLOGS

D&O, Audit Committees, Risk Management, Compliance, Investigations & Governance: http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Trust, Estate, Conservatorship & Elder Abuse Litigation: http://californiaestatetrust.com

Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davetateesq

Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidtateesq

 

Self-evaluation is an important board and committee activity, and can be very helpful if done properly.

A.  Introduction and Overview

The following discussion covers audit committee self-evaluation and provides processes that you can use. As noted elsewhere in these materials, although many board and audit committee functions, responsibilities and tasks are specified by statute, regulation, rule or pronouncement, board and audit committee member standards of care remain significantly dependent on due diligence and prudent judgment.

Boards and audit committees of various entities are required by law, regulation or rule to conduct annual committee self-evaluations; however, it is worthwhile for boards and audit committees of all public and private companies and nonprofit entities to conduct self-evaluations. Board and audit committee jobs are challenging, ongoing, and technical in nature, and require the members to significantly interact with many people in different capacities within and outside of the entity. It only makes sense that both boards and audit committees should at least once each year take time to step back and review, evaluate and make improvements to their manners of operation, and also consider helpful actions that can be taken by other people with whom the boards and audit committees interact. Self-evaluation will be worthwhile even if it results in improving only one area of operation.

Board and audit committee responsibilities originate from several different sources at least including (1) activities and responsibilities that boards or audit committees voluntarily undertake or that are delegated to them; (2) the business judgment rule; (3) the specific laws, regulations and rules that are applicable to the entity’s directors and audit committee members; (4) the wording of the board and audit committee charters, if there are charters; (5) shareholder and stakeholder expectations, and (6) for audit committees, accounting and auditing pronouncements relating to the outside auditor’s activities.

Prudent board and audit committee processes and diligence are also important to reduce member and entity liability and reputation risk. An increasing number of cases hold that board and audit committee members can be liable for failure to exercise sufficient diligence, failure to spot and respond to red flags, and failure to take action. Active board, committee and corporate diligence tend to demonstrate prudent business judgment and negate allegations of recklessness, improper intent, intentional wrongdoing, or “scienter” such as in the context of securities litigation, thus reducing the risk of securities liability and damages. In the context of audit committee activities, potential entity, board, and audit committee member liability typically arises in the context of alleged improper accounting practices, written and oral public misrepresentations (such as with respect to financial matters), and improper employment practices.

Although not required, there can be advantages to having a facilitator conduct an interactive interview approach to the self-evaluation process, but without performance grading or rating: it can be difficult to construct a questionnaire with standardized questions that would be similarly understood by each of the participants in the self-evaluation process; different people use different rating scales; different people express responses in different manners; and certain important issues will change from year to year. A facilitated approach may encourage better discussion and comment, compilation, continuity, explanation, and follow-up. Contact me if you are interested in committee self-evaluation assistance at a reasonable fixed fee.

Issues and topic areas to consider during the self-evaluation process will naturally vary from entity to entity, and from board and audit committee to board and audit committee. Thus, to stimulate discussion, below for both boards and audit committees I have provided lists of potential broad issues or topic areas to consider for discussion and evaluation, including both successes and possible improvements; and I have also outlined processes to assist your board and audit committee self-evaluation processes.

B.  Audit Committee Self-Evaluation

1.  Sample List of Issues and Topics to Consider for Audit Committee Self-Evaluation

The following is a list of issues and topic areas to consider for discussion and evaluation. The list is intended to help trigger thought processes, but, of course, is not exhaustive as areas of discussion and evaluation will vary from entity to entity, and from committee to committee. The following list is not intended to and does not suggest that each or any of the below issues and topics must be considered or covered and is not a checklist – instead, if your audit committee is required to conduct a specific evaluation process or to cover certain specific issues and topics, you will need to separately consider the specific requirements, if any, for your audit committee and its evaluation process pursuant to law, regulation or rule. In that regard, please also see the disclaimer and limitations at the beginning of these materials.

-Audit committee meeting agenda preparation and dissemination process.

-Committee member independence and situational independence, financial literacy, experience and expertise.

-Committee member access to information and/or education pertinent to the functions and responsibilities of the audit committee. Are the needs of the committee members being met, so that they are sufficiently knowledgeable and educated about the company or nonprofit and its industry; relevant significant accounting and auditing issues; relevant legal matters; internal controls, risk assessment and management; governance; and new developments in those and other areas?

-Committee and committee member interactions, including interaction between committee members, and between the committee and the board, the CEO, the CFO, the outside auditor, the internal auditor, legal counsel, compliance and ethics, HR, consultants, and other people.

-The committee’s processes for identifying and spotting issues, evaluation and decision making.

-The contents of the audit committee charter, and a mutual understanding of the audit committee’s responsibilities and tasks. The charter is a requirement for public companies, and is a good idea for many private companies and nonprofit entities. The charter is a prudent document to identify and clarify the audit committee’s responsibilities. In addition to the committee itself, it is important for the board, the executive officers, and other stakeholders to have a correct understanding about the committee’s responsibilities and limitations, and the extent to which state or local jurisdiction, U.S. and international requirements and responsibilities apply or may apply to your audit committee.

-Selection of the outside auditor; audit planning; review of the performance of the outside auditor; and review of the quarterly review and annual audit report and process (or compilation if appropriate).

-Review of recent developments relating to the business judgment rule, standard of care and acceptable reliance on other people.

-Review of accounting and financial internal and fraud/embezzlement related controls and processes, risk assessment and management, possible entity and individual liability and reputation risk exposure; and compliance assessment and management relating to laws, regulations, and rules that are within the scope of the audit committee’s functions and responsibilities including issues relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

– Review of the accounting department, and accounting and financial reporting for transactions including all of the subcomponents such as principles and policies applied (quality not just acceptability); judgments, estimates and reserves; timing and cutoff procedures; off balance sheet transactions; related party transactions; contingencies and liabilities; revenue recognition; expenses; inventories; goodwill; insider trading; and other matters relating to accounting and financial statement reports.

-Implementing revenue recognition rules, and other important, new or changing accounting principles.

-Review of internal investigation processes, procedures and needs.

-Review of the financial and internal audit functions, and how they can be helpful to the audit committee in the performance of its responsibilities and tasks.

-Review of risk management and uncertainty issues, practices and processes that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Implementing COSO 2013 or other appropriate processes.

-Documenting and reporting the audit committee’s activities and minutes.

-The audit committee’s use of attorneys and consultants.

-The company’s investor communication processes.

-Whistleblower, ethics, anonymous reporting and complaint handling processes to the extent that the reporting is within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Document retention policies.

-Review of the compliance and ethics function and processes that are within the scope of the audit committee’s responsibilities, and how they can be helpful to the audit committee in the performance of its responsibilities and tasks.

-Governance, including tone at the top, financial leadership, transparency and appearance.

-Review of employer, employee and workplace processes, culture, safety, and disciplinary practices that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of tax compliance and reporting issues that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of cybersecurity and internet security issues that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Insurance.

-Review of pension and health plan related issues that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of information privacy issues, practices and processes that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of asset protection, IP, trade secret, etc. practices to the extent that they are within the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of environmental issues and safety that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of product and consumer safety issues, practices and processes that are within the scope of the audit committee’s function and responsibilities.

-Review of billing and accounting relating to the receipt of funds or revenue from governmental sources such as Medicare and Medicaid; compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules and other requirements; and oversight of expenses relating to these areas.

-Review of the acceptance, receipt, allocation, expenditure or distribution, and accounting for all charitable and donor funds, grants, contributions, pledges and other resources, including compliance with all requirements, restrictions and special uses.

-Review of accounting for collaboration and joint venture arrangements, including the allocation of receipts/income and distributions/expenses between the entities.

-And, in this economic environment, review of the fair value of funds and investments, including loss of value; liquidity concerns; possible going concern issues; estimates for uncollectibles and related reserves; debt/loan covenants; and funding source uncertainties including those that relate to collaboration and joint venture arrangements.

-It is also important for the audit committee to clarify with the board what responsibilities it has, if any, for oversight of the numerous and various areas of taxation and compliance; ERISA, pension and health and welfare plans; investments; tax exempt status including fund raising, dues, solicitation, and political, campaign and lobby activities; and other areas significant to the entity.

-Discussion about audit committee membership and recruitment needs.

-Additional significant topics or issues that should be discussed.

2.  A Self-Evaluation Process and Format for Audit Committees

The following eight primary steps outline a proposed audit committee self-evaluation process that is workable for audit committees of public companies, private companies and nonprofit entities, whether using or not using, an outside facilitator.

 

Step 1. Determine the people who will be participating in the evaluation process, including the audit committee members, and other people, if any, to interview for comment.

Provide the names of the people who will participate in the evaluation process.

 

 

Step 2. Determine how the participant interviews will be conducted, individually or in a group, in person or by telephone, skype or some other means.

Provide comments or information about how the interviews will be handled with the various different people who will participate in the evaluation.

 

 

Step 3. Arrange participant individual or group interview dates and times.

Provide participant individual or group interview date and time information.

 

 

Step 4. Provide the participants with pre-interview materials and a list of possible issue or topic areas (broad and specific) for consideration and discussion. Of course, the participants can add additional issues or topics. Use this paper for that purpose.

Provide information regarding the status of disseminating the pre-interview materials.

 

 

Step 5. Have each participant provide a list of one to five, or more, issues or topic areas that the participant would specifically like to discuss during the evaluation process.

Provide comments and information regarding receipt of issues or topic areas from the self-evaluation process participants, and the respective issues or topic areas listed.

 

 

Step 6. Conduct information intake or interviews with participants individually or as a group.

Provide comments and information from the participants or the status of such – the input can be made by the participants themselves or by a facilitator during self-evaluation interviews.

 

 

Step 7. Summarize in a report format the issues and topic areas, information received, and suggestions made during the self-evaluation process.

Provide a summary in a report format.

 

 

Step 8. Provide a report back to the audit committee, and possibly conduct a committee group review of the self-evaluation process, information obtained, and suggestions made, and possible future actions or follow-up.

Provide additional comments and information about the self-evaluation process or results.

 

 

Concluding comments. I hope you have found this discussion helpful and at least a good starting point for your audit committee self-evaluation. Feel free to contact me if you are interested in discussing the audit committee self-evaluation process, or if you would like help with facilitation of committee self-evaluation at a reasonable fixed fee.

Best to you,

David Tate, Esq.

* * * * *

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:

* * * * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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