Ernest Aliseda has joined Dykema in its Commercial Litigation Practice Group as a member in the firm’s McAllen, Texas office.

Prior to joining Dykema, Aliseda served as General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer for the Loya Insurance Group companies, where he handled general legal matters and managed and oversaw diverse litigation throughout the country. Aliseda is also a former State District Judge for both the 398th and 139th State District Courts in Hidalgo County.

In a release, the firm said Aliseda will advise and represent clients in commercial and general litigation matters, along with serving as a mediator and arbitrator in personal injury, commercial, employment, international and personal injury law cases.

“We are very pleased and fortunate to add an attorney of Ernie’s stature to our roster,” said Diann Bartek, Office Managing Member of Dykema’s McAllen office. “His reputation precedes him. There is no doubt that his strong background in commercial litigation and his experience as a judge will be extremely valuable to the firm and its clients.”

Aliseda is a governor-appointed Regent of the University of Texas System Board of Regents and a State Bar of Texas President-appointed member of the Board of the Texas Bar College. He received his law degree from the University of Houston Law Center and his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University.

He is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in personal injury trial law, along with being trained as a mediator, arbitrator, and litigation management professional. He is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves, where he serves as a military judge.

An article posted by ContractRoom looks at three principal ways the practice of corporate law is being transformed.

“In the past decade or so, the rise of high internet speeds, collaborative business technologies and ubiquitous system access via the cloud have all combined to elevate the way deals get done in business – including the role and placement of corporate law in this process,” the article says.

The article discusses models for business, legal technology, and new roles within legal practice.

Read the article.

By Stephen Pinson
Scott & Scott LLP

A warranty is one of the most important contract provisions in a software contract. The warranty section deals with the performance of the software and what the licensor promises the software will or will not do. In a software contract, these performance warranties should be heavily negotiated, but usually they are overlooked. Because so many factors can affect the performance of the software, publishers seek to limit their warranty, and provide limited remedies in the event of a breach. It’s important for businesses who license software to have a strategy in place to successfully negotiate this section. But, what exactly are the pitfalls when negotiating a warranty provision, and how do you successfully navigate it?

One of the major pitfalls in negotiating a warranty is contained in the structure of the contract provision itself and the intent of the software licensor. Many contracts include boilerplate language, thus, contract negotiators must develop a systematic way to review the language and then develop a strategy to address the warranty concerns for their side of the deal. To do this, the parties must first understand the risks involved with a particular software license and negotiate for the specific risk type.

The best way to put this into action is to review the warranty language and put the language into more concrete roadmap to negotiate the contract by asking the following questions: (1) what are the licensor’s objectives in the warranty section, (2) what are licensee’s objectives in the warranty section, (3) what is a checklist of provisions that should be negotiated in a warranty section, and (4) what is a general checklist of provisions that should be included in a warranty section.

Licensor’s objectives in a Warranty section:

Licensors typically want to limit what they promise in their warranties as much as possible, and some limit their warranties to the most restrictive warranty possible, which is an “as-is” warranty – – “The Software is provided “as-is” without any warranties”. This type of warranty should never be accepted, and a warranty like this should always be negotiated for greater protections and promises that the software and services will perform.

Licensee’s objectives in a Warranty section:

At the very least, the licensee’s objective in the warranty section should be the following warranties:

• Title: That the licensor owns the software or, at least, has a license to use it.
• Performance: Simply, that the software will work.
• Virus: That the software does not contain any harmful code.

However, there are risks in seeking the bare minimum warranties listed above. When most licensees see these general warranties, they usually do not negotiate more than what is listed here. Remember, the warranty section is the contract provision dealing with how the software will perform and how the services will be performed. These are very important concepts because a whole host of things can go wrong (e.g., there could be errors, down time, or failure to perform, etc.).

Additionally, licensees must realize that software is an integral part of how a company does business. If the software does not perform in the way the licensee expects, or wants, then it can have detrimental effects to the bottom line of the business. Therefore, there must be a systematic checklist that a licensee can review to make sure they are negotiating the warranty section correctly. The following is a list of questions that should be answered by a licensee who is negotiating the warranty section.

Checklist of questions that should be asked when negotiating a warranty section on performance warranties:

1. Does the warranty clearly state the standard to which the vendor is subject (e.g., “free from material defects”; “performs substantially in accordance with end user documentation” for software)?
2. Does the warranty specify the time period within which the customer must notify the vendor of any warranty claims?
3. Does the warranty include appropriate exclusions (e.g., exclusions for software errors which cannot be reproduced, which occur in an unsupported hardware and system software environment, or which has been modified by the customer or any third party)?
4. Does the warranty include appropriate conditions precedent to the vendor’s obligation to provide a remedy for failure of performance (e.g., a requirement that the vendor be able to reproduce the error or demonstrate the occurrence or a statement of the costs the customer will be required to bear for fixing the issue)?
5. Does the warranty include sole and exclusive remedies for breach of warranty (e.g., such as “the exclusive remedy for breach of warranty is to fix or repair the software”)?
6. Does the warranty include an alternate exclusive remedy in the event the first remedy fails of its essential purpose (e.g., “refund of the purchase price”)?
7. Typically in a limited warranty section, does the Agreement contain a conspicuous disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability and does it also disclaim the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the warranty of title, or a warranty of non-infringement?
8. Is there a warranty that the licensor has taken the necessary precautions to excluded viruses?
9. Are the limitations of liability set forth in a separate section of the agreement from the warranty?
10. Does the agreement contain an acknowledgment by the customer that the purchase price or license fee reflects the negotiated warranty provisions?

Provisions that should be included in a typical warranty section:

Based on the answers to the questions above, the warranty section should include some of the following warranties:

• Licensor warrants that the Software shall substantially conform to the Functional Specifications.
• The software or service provider has necessary equipment and trained personnel to perform the services consistent with industry standards.
• The software will be free of material or hidden defects.
• The services will be performed in workmanlike manner.
• The services will be performed in accordance with industry standards.
• The software or service provider will comply with all applicable laws.
• The software or service provider warrants that it maintains an information security process with physical safeguards appropriate for the sensitivity of customer information.
• The warranty will have a time period, such as thirty (30) to sixty (60) days.
• *This is not an exhaustive list

Remember, warranty sections are contractual promises on how the software or services will perform. It is always important to seek advice from experienced legal counsel in order to understand all the risks involved when negotiating software and service contracts.

Masimo Corp. founder and CEO Joe Kiani

The top 500 chief executive officers in American companies earned 340 times the average worker’s wage last year, taking home $12.4m on average, according to an analysis by the AFL-CIO, reports The Guardian.

The union’s analysis found that the pay of executives leading the S&P 500 index of top companies actually dipped last year. The figure in 2014 for the same group was 373 times more than their workers, earning on average $13.5m.

“The marginal drop in pay comes despite some eye-watering payouts for the three highest-paid CEOs – Masimo Corporation’s Joe Kiani, Timothy Walbert of Horizon Pharma and Gamco Investors’ Mario Gabelli – who took home nearly $3bn between them, according to the AFL-CIO,” the Guardian story says.

The average production worker who does not hold a supervisory role,earned about $36,900 a year in 2015.

Read the article.

A Delaware judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shareholders who accused the board of the world’s largest retailer of trying to cover up bribes paid by company executives in Mexico, according to a report by Reuters.

The Delaware judge ruled that an earlier dismissal by an Arkansas judge of a nearly identical lawsuit by another group of shareholders precluded the Delaware case from going forward.

“He said that while the Arkansas plaintiffs may have chosen to rush their case rather than fully investigate alleged wrongdoing, their haste did not disqualify them from representing Wal-Mart shareholders,” Reuters reported.

In 2012, The New York Times reported that found Wal-Mart had engaged in a multi-year bribery campaign to build its Wal-Mart de Mexico business.

Read the article.

The lawyer who struck a $100 million deal with Uber Technologies Inc. is being accused of greed by some of the drivers covered by the accord who want her bumped, reports Bloomberg News.

“She has single-handedly stuck a knife in the back of every Uber driver in the country,” Hunter Shkolnik, a New York lawyer who’s pursuing his own cases against the ride-share service, said Friday in a phone interview with Bloomberg. “The entire class was thrown under the bus and backed over.”

Shkolnik asked the San Francisco federal judge who presides over the class-action settlement to remove Shannon Liss-Riordan as lead attorney. He says she sold out her clients by accepting a payout for California and Massachusetts drivers that’s less than 10 percent of the value of their claims “while she walks away with $25 million.”

Liss-Jordan labeled the claims as “uninformed,” “untrue and malicious.”

Read the article.

Image by NY Photographic

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ocean Beauty Seafoods v. Pacific Seafood Acquisition Company that the doctrine of equitable extension can be used to tack on a non-compete period to an employment agreement after the original period had run, according to an article by Michael Arnold and Robert Sheridan of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

They write that the case illustrates what can happen when: “employee disregards a non-compete and joins a competitor; former company calls foul and initiates a lawsuit; parties fight it out, but by the time litigation has run its course, the non-compete period in the underlying contract has expired.”

Read the article.

Image created by Meredith Atwater for opensource.com

It is possible to be mistaken about the existence or terms of an agreement and for that mistake to thereby prove that no contract exists, writes Glenn West in Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s Global Private Equity Watch.

As a general rule, being mistaken about whether you contracted, or what you contracted for, does not mean that a contract does not exist based upon the terms of the written agreement you signed. A party’s protestations that he or she did not understand the agreement, or believed it said something other than what it said, or that the words used in the agreement meant something other than what they are determined by a court to mean, will generally not be entertained by a court,” he wrote.

He discusses the case of Patterson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., which illustrates that “a unilateral mistake made by a party that is not made manifest to the other party will not be a basis for reformation because, absent knowledge of the mistaken belief, the other party is entitled to rely on the written agreement as manifesting the intentions of the otherwise mistaken party.”

Read the article.

Contracts containing uniform terms and conditions are a common feature of modern commercial life, write James F. Bogan III and William D. Meyer of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.

“Consumers are oftentimes required to agree to such contracts in order to buy a good or service, and the contracts typically contain provisions that benefit the business/seller and limit the legal remedies available to the consumer/buyer. While the law generally favors freedom of contract and supports the enforceability of uniform terms and conditions, a recent case applying New Jersey law shows that a business could be exposed to liability – including as a class action defendant – for simply including certain types of limiting clauses in consumer contracts,” they explain.

In their article, they discuss the case of Johnson v. Wynn’s Extended Care, Inc., in which the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a consumer has a valid cause of action against a business where its service contract simply contains a provision waiving attorneys’ fees and splitting costs.

Read the article.

Foley & Lardner LLP announced that Lou Cohen and Elgie Sims Jr. have joined the firm’s Business Law Department as of counsel in the Chicago office.

“We are thrilled to welcome Lou and Elgie. Together, they add unique transactional and public policy experience combined with a deep understanding of the Chicago market that will significantly enhance our offerings to clients,” said Myles Berman, managing partner of Foley’s Chicago office.

In a release, the firm said Cohen has led and handled high-profile real estate transactions for international and domestic lenders, developers, real estate investment trusts, public pension funds, pension fund advisors, insurance companies and governmental entities. He served as lead counsel for the owner and redeveloper of the Chicago Soho House Club, and represented the City of Atlanta in negotiations surrounding the development of the $1.4 billion stadium for the Atlanta Falcons. His practice is focused on commercial real estate development, including acquisitions and dispositions, venture structuring and formation, leasing, lending, restructuring and workouts.

“Lou is an accomplished and well-known real estate attorney in Chicago and the Midwest. His ability to manage complex real estate transactions will be a great service to our institutional and other major real estate clients,” said Fred Ridley, chair of Foley’s Real Estate Practice.

Sims, who is currently the Illinois state representative for the 34th District, will focus on government affairs and municipal finance as a member of the firm’s Government & Public Policy and Public Finance Practices. Sims has an extensive background representing clients and spearheading complex legislative initiatives before various branches of federal, state and local governments. Several of his legislative accomplishments include passage of Illinois’ film tax credit, which helped the film industry generate over $330 million in spending in 2015, and changes to Illinois’ nursing home reimbursement model. As state representative, he was the chief House sponsor of Senate Bill 1304, which established a clear policy and guidelines for police body-worn cameras and police reform initiatives. He currently serves as chairman of the Illinois House Judiciary Criminal Committee and a member of the Business and Occupational Licenses, Elementary & Secondary Education; Curriculum and Policies, Higher Education, Transportation, Regulation and Roads and Revenue and Finance Committees.

“As a lawyer and legislator, Elgie’s knowledge of the intricacies behind local and state government policies will benefit a broad range of our clients, from Fortune 500 businesses to health care companies to non-profit organizations. We look forward to adding his Midwest expertise to our established national bench,” said David Ralston, chair of Foley’s Government & Public Policy Practice.

Prior to joining Foley, Cohen was a partner at Locke Lord.

By Christopher Barnett
Scott & Scott LLP

Most software audits pertaining to products licensed under perpetual licenses (such as licenses acquired under a Microsoft Select Agreement, MPSA or (usually) Enterprise Agreement) incorporate a snapshot-in-time approach, where licenses owned generally are compared to deployments identified through data collected about current-state product deployments. In contrast, audits pertaining to products licensed under a Microsoft Services Provider License Agreement (SPLA) incorporate a strong historical-use element. Since SPLA pricing is based on a monthly reporting model, SPLA audits look at historical usage during the period covered by an audit (often, three years or more), and then compare that historical usage to a licensees’ historical usage reports.

And that historical-usage element is where almost all SPLA licensees routinely fall short.

Most companies licensing software under SPLA simply do not keep records regarding their usage quantities for past months. Microsoft’s license agreements typically contain requirements to “keep accurate and complete records relating to all use and distribution” of Microsoft’s software, but most businesses simply do not make the connection between that obligation and their monthly reporting procedures. As a result, there is a gaping hole in data collection for most SPLA audits.

The SPLA gives Microsoft the right to presume that unreported use identified during an audit month began at the commencement of the end-user relationships associated with that unreported use, unless a licensee can reasonably demonstrate a different scope and duration. This is where an element of creativity often can bridge the gap to a successful SPLA-audit resolution.

In the absence of historical data, Microsoft and its auditors often are willing to consider alternative approaches for estimating historical usage. For example, if the missing historical data pertain to products licensed per user, then one option could be to estimate changes in user license requirements over time based on changes in the licensee’s monthly revenue for the corresponding period. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to estimate historical usage by comparing usage to reporting for the audited month, and then applying the same ratio to reported quantities for previous months. User account creation dates also often are a relevant data point for these purposes.

For products licensed per processor or per core, it often makes sense to use a combination of resource-creation dates and records regarding past changes to the environment. For example, if the licensee can demonstrate through e-mails or other sources of information when it deployed additional infrastructure or server products over time, those records may be used to identify the earliest dates for which certain products should have been reported during the audit period.

In our experience, Microsoft’s auditors often are willing to consider different sources of information, but their preference always will be for the explanations that are supported by the most evidence. The stronger the factual basis for arguing in favor of a particular outcome, the better the odds of a successful resolution. In contrast, the more a licensee effectively asks Microsoft to trust it regarding past usage, the more doubtful those odds become.

Of course, the very best way to address the risks associated with SPLA audits is to plan for them. A standard part of any SPLA licensee’s reporting procedures should be to save an archive of historical usage reports generated by auditable inventory tools. For software and hardware deployments, those tools include System Center, MAP Toolkit, and Lansweeper, among others. Additional sources of information include RVTools (for VMware virtualization data) and Active Directory queries (for information regarding the Organizational Units and Security Groups to which authorized users belong). Well prepared SPLA licensees should be in the habit of preparing their monthly reports accurately and on time based on up-to-date deployment information and then saving that information every month, so that it never becomes necessary to determine the most appropriate, creative approach for filling data gaps.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) will present its inaugural Corporate Counsel Training Academy, in partnership with Georgetown Law CLE, June 16-17 at Georgetown Law Center in Washington, D.C.

Registration is still open for the two-day CLE program designed to provide practical training for counsel with three or fewer years of in-house experience, as well as those who are planning a transition from a law firm or a government position to a corporate legal department.

“The IADC created the Corporate Counsel Training Academy as a practical ‘bootcamp’ to help ease the sometimes difficult transition from outside law practice to in-house counsel,” said Alfred R. Paliani, IADC’s vice president of corporate and co-organizer of the Academy. “Our Academy faculty is composed of experienced corporate counsel with first-hand experience with the issues that they will address during the Academy – focusing on the practical, not the theoretical.”

A 2,400 member, invitation-only organization, the IADC serves its members and their clients, as well as the civil justice system and the legal profession. The organization maintains a leadership role in many areas of legal reform and professional development.

Academy attendees will receive advice and real-world tips that they can take back to their desks and use immediately. Session topics will include:

–Transitioning from Outside to Inside: What is this Strange New World?;
–It’s Your Money Now: The Reality of Life as An In-House Attorney;
–Mini MBA for In-House Lawyers: Essential Accounting and Financial Concepts;
–Ethics for Corporate Counsel 101: A New Paradigm;
–What DO GCs Look For in Newly Hired In-House Lawyers?; and
–21st Century Darwinism: Evolving from Corporate Lawyer to Corporate Leader.

“Through these and other topics, Academy faculty will share the kinds of practical insights that will make senior in-house lawyers say, ‘Wow, I wish I knew some of that stuff when I first left my law firm to go in-house,’ ” Paliani added. “We look forward to the Academy becoming an annual event and popular addition to IADC’s high-quality education programming that benefits our members and the legal community at-large.”

The Corporate Counsel Training Academy is open to IADC members and non-members. For additional information, including the program brochure, or to register for the program, visit http://www.iadclaw.org/education-events/cle-events/corporate-counsel-training-academy/. A live webcast of the program will be available for attendees who are unable to participate in-person.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) is an invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC’s members hail from five continents, 45 countries, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members, their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community. For more information, visit www.iadclaw.org.

Some U.S. companies are now paying a top hourly rate of $2,000 to partners at the country’s biggest law firms, according to a report on a survey released by BTI Consulting Group.

The report says the top rate of $2,000 an hour in 2015, up from $1,600 last year, represents a 25 percent one-year increase.

BTI conducted more than 300 independent, individual interviews with CLOs and general counsel at Fortune 1000 companies and large organizations.

The company said GCs pay the highest rates for:

• Bet-the-company IP work
• Enterprise level M&A related litigation
• Large-scale government investigation
• Defense against high-profile activist hedge funds

Read the article.

Six publicly traded energy producers have filed for bankruptcy and five of them opted to file in Houston since March, reports Reuters. The latest was Houston-based Linn Energy LLC, which filed on Wednesday.

“Lawyers who help decide where a company seeks bankruptcy protection say the Houston court could move some cases more quickly, saving oil-and-gas companies millions of dollars in potential legal fees, which can then be used to pay creditors,” the report says.

“More companies began to file in Houston after the court adopted a work order that aimed to expedite large cases by directing them to two of its six judges: Martin Isgur and Chief Judge David Jones.”

Read the article.

Many couples sign prenuptial and postnuptial agreements to cover division of property and other assets in the event of a divorce — there are even cohabitation agreements for partners who are not married but live under the same roof, reports Observer.

A “love contract” is a customized set of lifestyle clauses that can be inserted into any prenup, postnup or cohabitation agreement.

“A different kind of love contract applies when the two parties not only live together, but work together,” the report says. “When the legal document is signed in an office setting, the co-working couple promises that their consensual attraction will not lead to distractions or conflicts of interest in the workplace.”

Read the article.

Apple Inc. said on Thursday it has invested $1 billion in Chinese ride-hailing service Didi Chuxing, a move that Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said would help the company better understand the critical Chinese market, reports Reuters.

The investment gives Apple a stake in two burgeoning waves of technology – the sharing economy and car technology – as the iPhone business that propelled it to record profitability shows signs of maturing.

“Though Didi Chuxing is valued at upwards of $20 billion, according to a person familiar with its ongoing funding round, the company has been losing billions in a costly battle with Uber for market share in China,” the report says.

Read the article.

President Obama has signed a bill allowing companies to sue to defend their trade secrets, reports USA Today. Those thefts cost the American economy more than $300 billion a year, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property.

“The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, adds a civil component to the federal law making it a crime to steal intellectual property,” the newspaper report says. “Lawmakers said criminal penalties remain an important deterrent, but that the FBI’s resources to investigate and prosecute trade secret theft are limited.”

“Unfortunately, all too often, some of our competitors, instead of competing with us fairly, are trying to steal these trade secrets from American companies, and that means a loss of American jobs, a loss of American markets, a loss of American leadership,” Obama said.

Read the article.

Lawyers who won a $9.5 million settlement in a conspiracy case involving bar exam review courses will get a second chance to seek $2 million in attorneys’ fees, the 9th Circuit has ruled, according to a report by Courthouse News Service.

Plaintiffs sued West Publishing, which offers BarBri prep courses, and Kaplan in 2008, claiming the two colluded to block competition in the market for bar review courses.

The opinion also noted that the appellate court has reversed the trial judge’s denials and reductions of attorneys’ fees three times in a related case. Because of that pattern, the panel ordered that the case be assigned to a different judge on remand.

“In light of the history of this case and related litigation, it is clear to us that the district judge would have ‘substantial difficulty in putting out of his … mind’ his previously expressed erroneous findings and conclusions and that ‘reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice,'” according to the opinion.

Read the article.

eTERA Consulting, a data and technology management company, will present a complimentary webinar focused on eDiscovery and social media on May 19, 2016 at 11 a.m. EDT with panel speakers Bruce Malter, Emily Acosta and Michael Dwyer.

More than 45 percent of corporations have used publicly available social media content in litigation and fraud investigations, according to a study conducted in 2015 on social media analytics and eDiscovery. This one-hour webinar will provide attendees with information on when social media must be discovered, how social media is discovered, and how to enact processes and procedures to protect a corporation from becoming liable in a case, eTERA said in a release.

eTERA’s Bruce Malter, Vice President of Consulting Solutions; Segal McCambridge’s Emily Acosta, Esq., Associate; and Motorola Solutions’ Michael Dwyer, Project Manager in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, will discuss the following key topics:

• Current state and continued growth of social media
• Policies corporations could enact to reduce the risk of being held liable
• How to contain costs when faced with litigation that involves social media
• Information required from social media accounts in order to remain compliant with current regulations
• How to pull data from social media accounts for a case

This webinar is part of eTERA’s ongoing series of training and education initiatives to help legal professionals stay abreast of critical issues surrounding data management and eDiscovery.

Register for the webinar.

Speakers:

Bruce Malter, Vice President of Consulting Solutions, eTERA Consulting
Bruce Malter is responsible for developing eTERA’s client engagement program, as well as enhancing the company’s consulting service offerings, while growing the Midwest client base. Bruce brings over 25 years of experience with professional services companies and technology providers.

Emily Acosta, Esq., Associate, Segal McCambridge
Emily Acosta represents clients in complex commercial, employment and data security matters. Whether in the context of litigation or business counseling, Emily provides her clients with practical, simple solutions. She handles cases from initial client meeting to trial, and has substantial experience drafting and arguing procedural and dispositive motions, conducting depositions and preparing complex matters for trial.

Michael Dwyer, Project Manager in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Motorola Solutions
Michael Dwyer is an experienced technology professional with over 20 years of legal analysis and management experience. Michael has extensive experience developing and implementing various corporate operational strategies, policies and platforms related to the legal function, including litigation preparedness plans, matter decision analytics and legal spend management.

The amount of time board directors spend on their work and commit to strategy is rising, but in a new McKinsey Global Survey, few respondents rate their boards as effective at most tasks or report good feedback or training practices, according to an article on McKinsey’s website.

“Directors say they dedicate more time now to their board duties than ever before and that, since 2011, they’ve cut in half the gap between the actual and ideal amount of time they spend on board work,” the report says. “In the newest McKinsey Global Survey on corporate boards, the results confirm that strategy is, on average, the main focus of many boards. Yet directors still want more time for strategy—more than any other area of their board work—when they consider its relative value to their companies.”

Read the article.