Episode 342 -- How to Conduct an Internal Compliance Site Visit and Review
A Q&A With Exempt Organization Lawyer and EO Radio Show Host Cynthia Rowland
Ask a Certified Fraud Examiner Q&A - Part 4
Public-Private Partnerships to Stem Corruption
Nonprofit Quick Tip: Corporate Filings in Washington, D.C.
Navigating ESG: Preparing for Future Regulations (Part Two) — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Implications of the SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure Rule
Why Time Matters: Partners Lindsay Gerdes and Michael J. Bronson on Swift Action in Government Investigations
Nonprofit Quick Tip: State Filings in Colorado and Wyoming
REFRESH Nonprofit Basics: Director Duties and Best Practices for the Typical Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
REFRESH Nonprofit Basics: Designators, Members, Directors, Officers - The Who’s Who of Nonprofit Governance
Navigating ESG: The Growing Importance and Compliance Challenges (Part One) — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
“Monsters, Inc.” y el buen gobierno corporativo
Navigating the Regulation Jungle: How to Be Compliant, Work Efficiently, and Stay Sane
Episode 332 -- Deep Dive into SEC’s Internal Controls and Cybersecurity Settlement with R&R Donnelly
Digital Planning Podcast Episode: Estate Planning and the Corporate Transparency Act
Episode 331- NAVEX State of Risk and Compliance Programs
What the Board Should Be Asking About the Compliance Program
Market Leaders Podcast Episode 94: Exploring the Perils of Optics-Driven DEI Initiatives with Guest Mira Dewji
Managing Social Media Risk
On July 25, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that at least part of the basis for the currently pending legal attack on the Nasdaq’s proposed...more
Following the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests against racial inequity in 2020, many companies increased their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), as well as their external...more
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Nasdaq's board diversity rule, which the SEC first approved in August 2021 and was then challenged as unconstitutionally discriminatory and an improper...more
Last month, on May 13, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that SB 826, which requires publicly held California corporations with a principal executive office in California to follow gender...more
The California courts have cast doubt on the legality of laws mandating the number of women and individuals from “underrepresented communities” on the boards of directors of publicly traded corporations based in California....more
California courts have now struck down the second of the state’s two board diversity laws as unconstitutional. The recent decision affects California's gender diversity requirement for certain boards of directors. In April,...more
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 19STCV27561, 2022 WL 1565613 (Cal. Super. May 13, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Duffy-Lewis, J.) issued a decision following a bench trial finding that Senate...more
In a little over a month’s time, the Superior Court of California (the “Superior Court”) struck down both AB 979 and SB 826, California’s two board diversity statutes. SB 826 required that a public company whose principal...more
Ruling Follows Similar Decision on Underrepresented Minority Directors in April 2022 - A California court has held that California Senate Bill 826, which required that “publicly held” corporations that listed a California...more
On May 13, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, issued a verdict following a bench trial that effectively struck down SB 826, a California statute requiring the boards of public corporations based in the...more
The law suffers the same fate as the California board diversity law requiring directors from “underrepresented communities.” On May 13, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis issued a ruling in Crest...more
California’s Assembly Bill 979 (California Corporations Code § 301.4) was signed into law in September 2020 and requires public corporations with principal executive offices in the state to include a specific number of people...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate...more
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court order put the brakes on one of California’s much contested board diversity requirements, a decision certain to reverberate among the business community and efforts to...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County judge ruled that AB 979, which requires publicly held corporations with a principal executive office in California to have at least one member of the Board of Directors from an...more
As discussed in our previous blog, on April 1, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Terry Green, granted summary judgment in favor of individuals represented by D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Watch, declaring Assembly Bill...more
On April 1, 2022, Judge Terry Green of the Los Angeles Superior Court struck down California’s AB 979, which required publicly held companies based in California to have at least one board director from an “underrepresented...more
Assembly Bill 979 (the Bill), signed into law by Gov. Newsom on September 30, 2020, required all public companies with a principal executive office in California to have at least one director from an underrepresented...more
A California court invalidated a state law requiring that boards of directors of public companies based in California include members from under-represented groups, including persons of several races and ethnic groups and...more
Yesterday, yet another complaint was filed in federal district court charging that California’s board diversity statutes, SB 826 and AB 979, are unconstitutional under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. ...more
In 2018, California enacted legislation, SB 826 (Jackson), mandating that publicly held corporations with their principal executive offices in California have a minimum number of female directors.... The legislature is now...more
Last August, I reported on the filing of a taxpayer challenge to California's Board Gender Quota Law. Crest v. Padilla, Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. 19STCV27561. California's Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, was named as the...more
Two years ago, California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced a bill imposing gender quotas on publicly held domestic or foreign corporations having their principal executive offices in California. Then Governor...more
Section 305(a) of the California Corporations Code empowers a board of directors to fill vacancies with two important exceptions. First, the articles of incorporation or bylaws may provide otherwise. Second, the board may...more
As has been widely noted, the constitutionality of SB 826, California's new gender quota law, is questionable. It remains to be seen who will bring the challenge and where. Yesterday, Professor Stephen Bainbridge raised the...more