On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2017: Recent Developments and Current Issues

Released on: Jun. 26, 2017
Running Time: 06:05:32

As we continue to see many new regulations from the SEC, PCAOB and financial institution regulators, we also continue to see numerous challenges emerge for the audit committee.  If you are a director or member of an audit committee, or if you advise audit committees, this program will help you understand what is required of the audit committee, and those who advise them, in this rapidly changing environment.  You will hear from an expert faculty of public company directors and audit committee members, lawyers and CPAs who advise audit committees, and government regulators who oversee the audit and financial reporting processes.  Each panel will offer practical advice based on real-world examples to give you the information and tools you need to successfully perform and meet the many challenges facing audit committees and boards today.

You will learn:

  • The most important developments in the past year for audit committees, including SEC and PCAOB developments
  • Implications of the Trump administration on regulations implementing Dodd-Frank
  • Key accounting developments: important changes and GAAP/IFRS convergence update
  • How to build and maintain strong compliance programs
  • The audit committee’s role in overseeing risk
  • Ethical issues arising when advising audit committees

Special features:

  • One full hour of ethics CLE credit
  • Interactive panels

Public company directors, audit committee members, lawyers, CPAs and other public company advisors will take away valuable practical information and skills necessary to succeed in the current financial reporting environment.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:05:32]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:01:42]
    John F. Olson, Linda L. Griggs, Catherine L. Bromilow
  • SEC Developments Audit Committee Members Need to Know About [01:03:32]
    John F. Olson, Linda L. Griggs, Michael J. Gallagher, Sagar S Teotia, Joseph B. Ucuzoglu
  • PCAOB Developments: What’s Happening in the Auditing Arena? [00:59:34]
    Linda L. Griggs, Michael J. Gallagher, Jeanette M. Franzel, Joseph B. Ucuzoglu
  • Evolving Expectations for Audit Committees, including Audit Committee and Company Communications [01:00:17]
    Linda L. Griggs, Jeanette M. Franzel, Karen R. Osar, Sagar S Teotia, Joseph B. Ucuzoglu
  • Financial Reporting Developments: What Audit Committees Need to Know [01:00:18]
    Catherine L. Bromilow, Linda L. Griggs, Elizabeth Paul, Sagar S Teotia
  • Risk Management & Compliance: What Audit Committees Need To Know [01:00:40]
    Catherine L. Bromilow, Karen R. Osar, Debra Wong Yang
  • Evolving Ethical and Liability Challenges for Audit Committee Advisors: 2017 Edition [00:59:29]
    John F. Olson, Debra Wong Yang, Michael R. Young

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • SEC Developments Audit Committee Members Need to Know About
    John F. Olson
  • Effective Communications Between Auditors and Audit Committees (December 1, 2016)
    Jeanette M. Franzel
  • Audit Expectations Gap: A Framework for Regulatory Analysis (December 13, 2016)
    Jeanette M. Franzel
  • Standard-Setting Update, Office of the Chief Auditor (March 31, 2017)
    Jeanette M. Franzel
  • Eighteen Safeguards to an Audit Committee’s Investigation of Financial Reporting (October–December 2015)
    Michael R. Young
  • Getting the Most out of Internal Audit (August 2016)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • To GAAP or Non-GAAP? The SEC is Watching (June 2016)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • Approaching the 2016 Year-End Financial Reporting Season (December 2016)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • The Quarter Close: A Look at This Quarter’s Financial Reporting Issues, Directors Edition (March 15, 2017)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • Risk Management Oversight: A Debate Continues and Committees Get Busier (July–September 2014)
    Michael R. Young
  • How Your Board Can Influence Culture and Risk Appetite (February 2017)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • Why Your Board Should Take a Fresh Look at Risk Oversight: A Practical Guide for Getting Started (January 2017)
    Catherine L. Bromilow
  • Evolving Ethical and Liability Challenges for Audit Committee Advisors: 2017 Edition
    John F. Olson

Presentation Material


  • Supplemental Materials
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Risk Management & Compliance: What Audit Committees Need to Know
    Catherine L. Bromilow, Karen R. Osar, Debra Wong Yang
  • Evolving Ethical Liability Challenges for Audit Committee Advisors: 2017 Edition
    Peter J. Beshar, John F. Olson, Debra Wong Yang, Michael R. Young
Co-Chair(s)
Catherine L. Bromilow ~ Partner, Governance Insights Center, PwC
Linda L. Griggs ~ Consultant
John F. Olson ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Speaker(s)
Jeanette M. Franzel ~ Board Member, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Michael J. Gallagher ~ Managing Partner, Assurance Quality, PwC
Karen R. Osar ~ Corporate Director
Elizabeth Paul ~ Partner, Strategic Thought Leader, Nat'l, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Sagar S Teotia ~ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Joseph B. Ucuzoglu ~ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer , Deloitte & Touche LLP
Cullen D Walsh ~ Practice Fellow, FASB
Debra Wong Yang ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Michael R. Young ~ Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Share
Email
Excellent ethics session, probably the best I have ever experienced in 30 years! - 2016 Attendee

Impressive panel speakers and moderators. - 2016 Attendee


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.