On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Annual Disclosure Documents 2016

Released on: Dec. 16, 2016
Running Time: 12:59:01

Stay current on disclosure requirements and developments affecting annual disclosure documents and proxy soliciting materials prepared by SEC reporting companies. Hear from the SEC staff and our faculty, who will focus on current “hot issues,” best practices, and practical pointers. The upcoming reporting season appears headed towards being another interesting one, with significant events and uncertainties covering a wide spectrum of matters affecting public company disclosures. These include the Dodd-Frank Act mandated compensation-related rulemaking by the SEC; non-GAAP and other financial disclosures; domestic and international economic, political and regulatory uncertainties and developments; cybersecurity; and climate change disclosure trends. Ethics and whistleblower developments impose even further challenges on both in-house and outside counsel. Our faculty will discuss key areas of staff comment, staff review priorities and interpretations, disclosure drivers and best practices, and “must know” accounting developments affecting financial disclosures.

You will learn:

  • Practical guidance on drafting annual disclosure and proxy documents
  • SEC, FASB and PCAOB developments affecting financial disclosures
  • Updates on new and current hot topic executive compensation developments, disclosures and requirements
  • Updates on disclosure effectiveness initiatives
  • Practical guidance for holding a successful annual meeting and interfacing with shareholders

 Special Feature(s) 

  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

Credit Offered:  CLE, CPE and CPD


Attorneys, accountants, financial and compliance officers, disclosure committee members and others responsible for preparing public company disclosures and otherwise overseeing compliance with the securities laws should view this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:59:01]

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


  • Introduction* [00:05:11]
    Sandra L. Flow, Michael L. Hermsen, Mary J. Mullany
  • Corporation Finance Developments and Priorities [01:03:48]
    Sandra L. Flow, Suzanne Hayes, Michael L. Hermsen, Mary J. Mullany
  • Disclosure Practices and Challenges [01:15:12]
    Aaron Briggs, Sandra L. Flow, Suzanne Hayes, Peter W. Hennessey, Michael L. Hermsen, Todd J. Russo, Lisa Vicens
  • Emerging Disclosure Developments [01:01:57]
    Aaron Briggs, Sandra L. Flow, Suzanne Hayes, Peter W. Hennessey, David A. Kanarek, Deborah C. Lofton
  • Accounting and Financial Reporting Developments and Priorities Affecting Financial Disclosures [01:00:06]
    Amy J. Dorfmeister, Suzanne Hayes, David A. Kanarek, Todd J. Russo
  • Learnings from Enforcement and the Impact on Disclosure Practices [01:02:43]
    Kenneth R. Lench, Deborah C. Lofton, Joan E. McKown, Todd J. Russo
  • Ethics and Whistleblower Developments: Challenges to Be Aware of When Preparing and Reviewing Disclosure Documents [00:57:26]
    Michael L. Hermsen, Kenneth R. Lench, Joan E. McKown
  • Performance Based Compensation [01:00:19]
    Melissa L. Burek, Keir D. Gumbs, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, Mary J. Mullany, John Roe
  • Developments and Best Practices in Executive Compensation [01:16:26]
    Melissa L. Burek, Keir D. Gumbs, Edward A. Hauder, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, John Roe
  • The Current State of Clawback Requirements and Considerations [01:00:38]
    Lillian Brown, Edward A. Hauder, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, Mary J. Mullany, John Roe
  • Corporate Governance and Shareholder Proposals [01:16:36]
    Lillian Brown, Lacey Elberg, Richard H. Grubaugh, Scott Lesmes, Brian Sandstrom
  • Solicitation Issues Related to Annual Meetings [00:59:12]
    Lillian Brown, Lacey Elberg, Richard H. Grubaugh, Scott Lesmes, Deborah C. Lofton, Brian Sandstrom
  • Annual Reporting Practices and Shareholder Meeting [00:59:27]
    Lacey Elberg, Keir D. Gumbs, Scott Lesmes, Brian Sandstrom

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Register Vol. 81 No. 112, Proposed Rules; Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rulemaking: Executive Compensation, Corporate Governance, Miscellaneous Provisions (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Roadmap to Capital Markets Regulatory Changes: Proposed, Potential and Recently Adopted or Enacted Rulemaking and Legislation Relating to the U.S. Capital Markets, Public Company Reporting and Corporate Governance (September 8, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • Preparing for the Annual Shareholders Meeting: Five Practical Matters U.S. Public Companies Should Consider Now, Mayer Brown Client Alert (January 28, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • Modernization of U.S. Business and Financial Disclosures: A “Taste” of the SEC’s Concept Release, Mayer Brown Client Alert (April 26, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • In Sanofi, the Second Circuit Applies Omnicare’s Standard for Liability for Statements of Opinion Under Section 11 for the First Time and Affirms Dismissal, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (March 8, 2016)
    Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens, Sandra L. Flow
  • Using Social Media to Make Regulation FD Compliant Disclosure
    Peter W. Hennessey
  • Jaffari, K. and Jalali, M. (August 1, 2016). SEC’s Radar is on Non-GAAP Financial Measures, The Legal Intelligencer
    Mary J. Mullany
  • SEC Provides Guidance on Non-GAAP Financial Measures, Mayer Brown Client Alert (May 24, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • Non-GAAP Financial Measures: The SEC’s Evolving Views, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (June 13, 2016)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • U.S. SEC Adopts Final Rules for Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, Mayer Brown Client Alert (July 13, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • SEC Proposes to Overhaul Its Disclosure Requirements for Mining Companies, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (June 20, 2016)
    Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens, Sandra L. Flow
  • Conflict Minerals: New D.C. Circuit Decision, but no Rule Changes—Yet, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (August 21, 2015)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • New York Regulators Propose Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Institutions, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum(September 20, 2016)
    Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens, Sandra L. Flow
  • FASB Issues Update for Stock-Based Compensation Accounting, Exequity Client Alert (April 13, 2016)
    Edward A. Hauder
  • SEC Comments and Trends, An analysis of current reporting issues, Ernst & Young LLP (September 2016)
    Amy J. Dorfmeister
  • Insider Trading and SEC Rule 10b5-1(c) Trading Plans (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • DOJ Launches Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Pilot Program, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (April 15, 2016)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • SEC Proceeding Against Attorneys FY2016 (August 12, 2016)
    Joan E. McKown
  • SEC Announces First Enforcement Action Against Company for Stifling the Whistleblowing Process by Improperly Using Restrictive Language in Confidentiality Agreements, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (April 2, 2015)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • Relevant New York Rules of Professional Conduct (January 1, 2014)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • Jaffari K. and Loi, E. (September 12, 2016). The State of Regulation of Executive Compensation—How Did We Get Here?, The Legal Intelligencer
    Mary J. Mullany
  • SEC Proposes Long-Awaited Pay for Performance Rules, Shearman & Sterling Client Publication (May 4, 2015)
    Doreen E. Lilienfeld
  • Some Observations Concerning the SEC’s Proposed Pay-Versus-Performance Disclosure Rules, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (May 29, 2015)
    Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens, Sandra L. Flow
  • New Proposed Rules for Financial Institutions’ Incentive Compensation, Exequity Client Alert (May 18, 2016)
    Edward A. Hauder
  • Relative TSR Prevalence and Design of S&P 500 Companies—2016, Exequity Client Briefing (September 7, 2016)
    Edward A. Hauder
  • Executive Compensation Disclosure Requirements for the 2017 Proxy Season (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • SEC Proposes Equity Hedging Disclosure Rules Under Dodd-Frank, Shearman & Sterling Client Publication (February 19, 2015)
    Doreen E. Lilienfeld
  • SEC Proposes Hedging Disclosure Rules, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (February 18, 2015)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • Nasdaq Golden Leash Disclosure Rule Approved by SEC, Shearman & Sterling Client Publication (July 15, 2016)
    Doreen E. Lilienfeld
  • U.S. SEC Approves Nasdaq Rule Amendments Requiring Disclosure of “Golden Leash” Arrangements, Mayer Brown Client Alert (July 18, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • The SEC’s Final Pay Ratio Rules: What You Need to Know, Shearman & Sterling Client Publication (August 10, 2015)
    Doreen E. Lilienfeld
  • SEC Issues Final CEO Pay Ratio Rule, Exequity Client Alert (August 13, 2015)
    Edward A. Hauder
  • Delaware Chancery Court Revisits the Topic of Fiduciary Duties of Directors in Approving Senior Executive Compensation Packages, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (March 8, 2016)
    Sandra L. Flow, Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens
  • SEC Proposes Highly Anticipated Clawback Rules, Shearman & Sterling Client Publication (July 9, 2015)
    Doreen E. Lilienfeld
  • Claw-Back of Erroneously Paid Incentive-Based Compensation (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Shareholder Proposal Developments During the 2016 Proxy Season (June 28, 2016)
    Robert O. Mueller, Lori Zyskowski, Elizabeth A. Ising
  • Corporate Governance, Shareholder Proposals—SEC Guidance (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2016, Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum (January 26, 2016)
    Elizabeth (Lisa) Vicens, Sandra L. Flow
  • Shareholder Engagement and Solicitations (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Preparing for the 2017 U.S. Proxy and Annual Reporting Season, Mayer Brown Client Alert (September 19, 2016)
    Michael L. Hermsen
  • The Proxy Season Field Guide, Sixth Edition, Morrison & Foerster LLP
    Scott Lesmes
  • 2016 Annual Reporting, May 2017 Annual Meeting, Proposed Timeline (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaire, 2017 Annual Meeting, 2016 Annual Report (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany
  • Annual Report on Form 10-K, Proxy Statement and Annual Report to Shareholders (September 2016)
    Mary J. Mullany, Eric Loi
  • ISS and Glass Lewis Issue Proxy Voting Policy Updates for the 2016 Proxy Season, Exequity Client Alert (January 7, 2016)
    Edward A. Hauder
  • Memorandum Concerning the Legal Implications of Being a Publicly Held Company (January 2016)
    Keir D. Gumbs

Presentation Material


  • Practicing Law Institute Annual Disclosure Documents 2016 Disclosure Practices and Challenges
    Aaron Briggs, Sandra L. Flow, Suzanne Hayes, Peter W. Hennessey, Michael L. Hermsen, Todd J. Russo, Lisa Vicens
  • Practicing Law Institute Annual Disclosure Documents 2014: Emerging Disclosure Developments
    Aaron Briggs, Sandra L. Flow, Suzanne Hayes, Peter W. Hennessey, David A. Kanarek, Deborah C. Lofton
  • Accounting and Financial Reporting Developments
    Amy J. Dorfmeister, Suzanne Hayes, David A. Kanarek, Todd J. Russo
  • Lessons Learned from Enforcement
    Kenneth R. Lench, Deborah C. Lofton, Joan E. McKown, Todd J. Russo
  • Ethics: Developments and Challenges
    Michael L. Hermsen, Kenneth R. Lench, Joan E. McKown
  • Performance Based Compensation
    Melissa L. Burek, Keir D. Gumbs, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, Mary J. Mullany, John Roe
  • Developments and Best Practice in Executive Compensation
    Melissa L. Burek, Keir D. Gumbs, Edward A. Hauder, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, John Roe
  • The Current State of Clawback Requirements and Considerations
    Lillian Brown, Edward A. Hauder, Doreen E. Lilienfeld, Deborah C. Lofton, Mary J. Mullany, John Roe
  • Corporate Governance and Shareholder Proposals
    Lillian Brown, Lacey Elberg, Richard H. Grubaugh, Scott Lesmes, Brian Sandstrom
  • Solicitation Issues Relating to the Annual Meeting
    Lillian Brown, Lacey Elberg, Richard H. Grubaugh, Scott Lesmes, Deborah C. Lofton
  • Annual Reporting Practices and Shareholder Meetings
    Lacey Elberg, Keir D. Gumbs, Scott Lesmes, Todd J. Russo, Brian Sandstrom
Co-Chair(s)
Sandra L. Flow ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Michael L. Hermsen ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Mary J. Mullany ~ Ballard Spahr LLP
Speaker(s)
Aaron Briggs ~ Executive Counsel, Corporate, Securities and Finance, GE
Lillian Brown ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Melissa L. Burek ~ Compensation Advisory Partners, LLC
Amy J. Dorfmeister ~ Ernst & Young LLP
Lacey Elberg ~ Assistant General Counsel & Assistant Corporate Secretary , Johnson & Johnson
Richard H. Grubaugh ~ Senior Vice President, D.F. King & Co., Inc.
Keir D. Gumbs ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Edward A. Hauder ~ Senior Consultant and Advisor, Exequity LLP
Suzanne Hayes ~ Assistant Director, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Peter W. Hennessey ~ Ballard Spahr LLP
David A. Kanarek ~ American Express Company
Kenneth R. Lench ~ Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Scott Lesmes ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
Doreen E. Lilienfeld ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Deborah C. Lofton ~ Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Qlik Technologies, Inc.
Joan E. McKown ~ Jones Day
John Roe ~ Head of Advisory and Client Services, ISS Corporate Solutions
Todd J. Russo ~ Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Buckeye Partners, L.P.
Brian Sandstrom ~ Executive Counsel, Corporate, Securities and Finance, GE
Lisa Vicens ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 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 15 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.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • 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.