The policy also covers sexual assault and child abuse, with full agreement from the players’ union.

Click on the following link for the article: sports.yahoo.com

Dave Tate’s comments. You may have seen that I have been discussing in various posts since May the NFL/Goodell/Brady situation and fiasco. Now comes the MLB domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse policy.

It is clear that every sports organization needs to have policies or procedures, or both, for these and other activities including other unlawful acts. Let me say, however, that I am surprised by several aspects of the MLB policy – that is, I am surprised that the Players Union would agree to give the Commissioner such power, I am surprised that the Commissioner would want to have such power and decisions made in the manner outlined, and I am surprised that the owners and players would be in agreement with the procedures.

Do you really want your CEO (the Commissioner) making these decisions? The personal and job risk to the Commissioner is extreme. Similarly, as the Commissioner is at risk, so are the owners and MLB as the Commissioner is MLB’s figurehead.

Does the Players’ Union really want to give the Commissioner and MLB apparently almost unlimited authority to punish? I have argued in California an appellate case over interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and terms in that agreement pertaining to dispute mediation provisions. At least in California courts are hesitant to override collective bargaining agreement provisions.

The players can’t want the Commissioner to have such arbitrary and possibly unlimited power and authority. And as each player’s factual and legal situation is and will be different, players really don’t know how they will be treated or whether it will be in a fair and reasonable manner, or the extent to which the Commissioner will seek to punish a player for alleged player lack of cooperation (i.e., the player being willing to give the Commissioner the player’s smart phone, all phone records, all phone and text messages, and all emails, the player answering all questions, and the player being willing to be interviewed and cross-examined multiple, and perhaps unlimited times).

Having a joint policy or review board is a good step. How members of that board are selected, reviewed, removed and replaced are important issues, including who can take those actions. The board then can take most of the heat for decisions. Give the Commissioner and the player/Players’ Union authority to compel the board to reconsider its tentative decision and punishment. Give the Commissioner authority to reduce or lessen the board’s decision and punishment. Give both the Commissioner and the player/Player’s Union the right to appeal the board’s ultimate decision to a higher authority separate and independent from MLB and the Commissioner.

See also my prior blog posts relating to the Goodell/Brady fiasco (posts dated May 7, 14 and 20, and August 13), and my June 7 post why everyone needs an on-call crisis quick response attorney, http://wp.me/p5c0al-f5.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

In a unanimous decision handed down by the California Supreme Court in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, the Court removed an obstacle facing companies in some circumstances that want to assign their interest in an insurance policy.

Click on the following link for a discussion: www.natlawreview.com

Dave Tate’s comment: briefly, this is an important decision for policy holders, the possible result of which may increase the number of bad faith actions going forward in some circumstances. Perhaps more or equally important, the decision adds a tool for policy holders that could have wide ramifications as the Court’s reasoning might be argued or applied in other circumstances.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

Click on the following link for the article: www.wsandco.com

Dave Tate’s comments: Passing this along from Priya Cherian Huskins. Good open-ended questions to get the discussions going.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

The following is a link to Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated 08222015). Please read and pass it along. I have also posted a link to the most recent guide on the first page of my blog.

Click on the following link for the guide: Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide 08222015

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

News- 2016 index will also tap OECD principles; scores in 2015 rankings hit a new high. Singtel takes top spot in annual ranking. -BT Read more at AsiaOne

Click on the following link for the discussion: business.asiaone.com

My thoughts. The article is an interesting discussion. These changes might catch on more broadly. Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)

Sourced through Scoop.it from: deloitte.wsj.com

From Deloitte. A good resource for officers, directors and audit committees.

Dave Tate, Esq. (California)

Click on the following for the article: corpgov.law.harvard.edu

Important to consider for internal investigations. But consider, you should always assume that your investigations might be discoverable or that you might want to voluntarily disclose the investigation.

Dave Tate, Esq. (California)

Words of wisdom from Bob Carver, a cybersecurity expert, and for officers and directors, Bob’s “new normal” for cybersecurity:

“What should be the “’New Normal?’”

• Consider all systems on your network as untrusted (even network printers and IoT Internet of Things) and plan accordingly.
• Assume current generation anti-virus will not save you from compromise or infection.
• Start investigating next generation endpoint security, looking for methods such as containerization so infections will not be able to penetrate and write to the operating system.
• First Generation IDS will not detect many of the latest attacks and malware, usually based on relatively static signatures. If they do detect, the attack will change rendering the signature worthless in short order.
• Look at next generation intrusion detection systems that look at traffic to and from malicious domains and IP’s on a dynamic basis, not static signatures.
• Assume any new sophisticated malware has been tested against all traditional AV, IDS systems and firewalls.
• Assume First Generation security will not stop or detect the majority sophisticated attacks.
• Assume some entity or cybercriminal has already gotten into your network or compromised one or more systems and is already inside.
• In the past we have been concerned about attacks from the outside. Now we need to be concerned about attacks and traffic from the inside.
• In the past we spent more time monitoring traffic attempting to get in our networks, now we need to monitor outbound traffic on all ports, protocols both standard and non-standard.”

You should read Bob’s entire discussion. To do so, CLICK HERE

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)

The paper outlines the Nymity approach for getting to accountability and details how to maximize your privacy management program.

Click on the following link for the NYMITY paper download: www.nymity.com

Click on the link to download a new paper (50 pages) by NYMITY discussing privacy management. Downloading doesn’t require that you input information – it’s very easy. I suggest that the paper is a good read if you have any involvement in or concern about corporate or business privacy issues. Enjoy, and have a good weekend.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)

As we previously reported here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked the Georgia Supreme Court to weigh in on the coverage dispute in Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Speci

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.natlawreview.com

Good advice in the bottom paragraphs.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco/California)