HSE LEGALcurrents

On June 19, 2015, the New York Legislature passed two bills (the “Bills”) updating the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (the “N-PCL”). The latest changes add new restrictions to the already challenging rules regarding related party transactions and independent director approvals established by the Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013 (the “NPRA”). The changes also clarify ambiguities brought about by the NPRA and correct technical issues. A summary of the key changes is below:

  • Related Party Definition. The Bills expand the universe of persons subject to the NPRA’s restrictive rules regarding related party transactions by revising the definition of “related party” to include anyone who exercises the powers of directors, officers or key employees over the affairs of the corporation - even if they do not hold those titles. Once the Bills are signed by the Governor, organizations should consider updating their policies to expand definitions to include this change.
  • Independent Director Definition. The Bills restrict the ability of any individual who is associated with the corporation’s outside auditor, or has worked on the corporation’s audit any time during the last three years, from being considered an “independent director” and participating in a not-for-profit corporation’s audit functions.

Additionally, the Bills clarify that an individual is still eligible to be an independent director if he or she pays fees to the corporation for services that it provides to the public in the ordinary course of business. For example, a hospital director who ends up being treated at the hospital could still be independent.

Organizations should update their policies and procedures to reflect the changes to this definition once the Bills are signed into law.

  • Presence at Meetings. The Bills clarify that a director will be considered “present” at a meeting for purposes of a quorum, regardless of whether such director has recused himself or herself from the deliberation or voting on a specific matter because of a potential conflict of interest or related party transaction.
  • Distribution of Whistleblower Policy. Echoing recent guidance released by the Attorney General’s Office, the Bills state that a corporation may now post its Whistleblower Policy on the corporation’s website or in a conspicuous location at the corporation’s offices to comply with the distribution requirements under the N-PCL.

view PDF


Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This publication is provided as a service to clients and friends of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP. It is intended for general information purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The contents are neither an exhaustive discussion nor do they purport to cover all developments in the area. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how applicable laws relate to specific situations. ©2015 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP

Disclaimer

This website presents only general information not intended as legal advice. Although we encourage calls, letters and emails from prospective clients, please keep in mind that merely contacting Harter Secrest & Emery LLP (HSE) does not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Confidential information should not be sent to HSE until you have been notified in writing by HSE that a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Information sent to us before then may not be treated as confidential by HSE or the court.

I have read this and agree     Cancel

Our website uses cookies. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.