Compliance Tip of the Day: Rethinking Corporate AI Governance Through Design Intelligence
Daily Compliance News: July 21, 2025, The More Reasons Not to Go to China Edition
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending July 19, 2025
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Governance Framework - Part 5, People
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Governance Framework: Part 4, Culture
Daily Compliance News: July 17, 2025, The COSO Yanked Edition
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Governance Framework: Part 2, Oversight
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Governance Framework: Part 1, Introduction
Daily Compliance News: July 14, 2025, The Secret Business Sauce-Reading Edition
Episode 377 -- Refocusing Due Diligence on Cartels and TCOs
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending, July 12, 2025
Daily Compliance News: July 11, 2025, The What is a COI Edition
Treating Compliance Like an Asset
Five Tips for a New Public Company Director
Compliance Tip of the Day: Assessing Internal Controls
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Objective 5 – Monitoring Activities
Compliance Tip of the Day: COSO Objective 4 - Control Information and Communication
Everything Compliance: Episode 156, To Document or Not Edition
Daily Compliance News: June 26, 2025, The? Matt Galvin Honored Edition
Compliance into the Weeds: Boeing’s New Safety Initiatives and Compliance Reforms
On July 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, which held that an exclusive forum-selection clause designating a forum where a civil jury trial would...more
The Delaware Supreme Court has agreed to accept questions certified to the court relating to the constitutionality of Senate Bill 21 (SB 21), which was signed into law back in March 2025. ...more
Not to be outdone by Delaware and Texas, the Nevada Senate voted unanimously on May 21, 2025, to adopt Assembly Bill No. 239 (AB 239), which provides for significant amendments to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) governing...more
California is a very linguistically diverse state with an estimated 200 plus different languages being spoken. Within my own family, English is not the primary language spoken at home by any of my grandchildren. Yet, the...more
Last year, I commented on the likely unconstitutionality of two California laws compelling forced speech...more
Last year, Superior Courts in Los Angeles County invalidated two California statutes requiring specific diversity mandates for California public company boards (Senate Bill 826 “SB 826” and Assembly Bill 979 “AB 979”). The...more
A little over a year ago, I wrote that California Superior Court Judge Terry Green had found that AB 979 facially violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7. Crest v....more
Like Gaul, the California Nonprofit Corporation Law has three major parts ("Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres'). These three parts govern the formation and operation of three different types of nonprofit corporations:...more
The first half of 2022 illuminated important trends in the corporate governance space. In recent months, there were notable developments in the enforcement of economic sanctions and export control measures, and the oversight...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
On Friday, May 13, a California Superior Court judge struck down Senate Bill (“SB”) 826—California’s landmark gender diversity law regarding the representation of women directors on the boards of publicly held corporations...more
On May 13, 2022, a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in Crest v. Padilla, Case No. 19STCV27561, that California’s statute requiring California-based public companies to have one to three women on their...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
You might remember that the first legal challenge to SB 826, California’s board gender diversity statute, Crest v. Alex Padilla, was a complaint filed in 2019 in California state court by three California taxpayers seeking to...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
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 20STCV37513 (Cal. Super. Apr. 1, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Green, J.) declared that Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code is unconstitutional...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