AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The American Health Law Association (AHLA) is the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization devoted to legal issues in the health care field. AHLA's Speaking of Health Law podcasts offer thoughtful analysis and insightful commentary on the legal and policy issues affecting the American health care system.
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
Health Care Corporate Governance: Developments in Board Minute Taking
Rob Gerberry, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Summa Health, speaks with Michael Peregrine about legal best practices and practical tips for minute taking. They discuss the core purpose of minutes and appropriate length, how much time to invest in minute taking and preparation, the relationship of minutes to third-party books and records requests, the minute approval process, how long minutes should be kept, lawyer involvement in minute taking and review, the role of artificial intelligence, and how much latitude there is to revising minutes.
Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQ_sNFS9Ps
Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio
AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.
Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education
Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.
This episode of AHLA Speaking of Health Law is brought to you by AHLA members and donors like you. For more information, visit AmericanHealthlaw.org.
SPEAKER_02:Hello, everybody. Welcome to our continuing series of AHLA Corporate Governance Podcasts. This is Rob Gerberry. I'm the Chief Legal Officer of SUMA Health and the present-elect designate of the HLA. Today's episode relates to a fundamental element of corporate governance and one on which we continue to receive questions on its best application, minute taking at board and committee meetings. The general counsel has typically been called upon to interact with minute takers in at least three ways. As scribbler, actually taking the notes and preparing the minutes, as reviewer, reviewing and commenting on the draft minutes as prepared by another, and as an advisor, working with employees designated to take minutes to establish guidelines for their preparation and application. This connection has been expanded to now evaluate and advise on the use of AI technology and the work of the board, including but not limited to the use of AI and minute-taking efforts. This renewed focus comes at a time when minutes are the subject of an increasing level of interest with respect to such matters as internal and external investigations, litigations, and books and records requests. All this places a premium on the proper preparation of minutes and on the general counsel's participation in this minute-taking process. And to help us discuss this issue today, as always, we're joined by my HLA colleague and friend Michael Peregrine, who's both an HLA fellow and a fellow of the American College of Governance Council. So welcome to 2026, Michael.
SPEAKER_01:Rob, what do you think if people uh knew that we were thought a big deal was spending a half hour discussing board minutes? I think the there would be a resulting drop in law school admission uh uh as a result. But you and I love it, and I think a lot it's you're right. I think a lot of our members really do get into minutes, which is a fun thing.
SPEAKER_02:To your comment, Michael, they truly may let AI take over the world if they were spending these 30 minutes. So let's skip right to the first question about best practice. Long minutes or short minutes?
SPEAKER_01:Yes. Actually, and my point is that there's really no best practice here when it comes to the length of meeting minutes. But you know, I think we can take some direction from uh Leo Strein, the former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, who's written some wonderful uh pieces on this subject. Uh, Justice Strine um has emphasized the importance of establishing a thoughtful approach to the preparation of minutes. In other words, let's focus on a standard approach in implementing it, as he said, professionally and consistently. Um, and I want to emphasize the concept of consistence consistently. Uh, as to your question about long or short, I think the best answer is pick a lane. Stick with it. And it's, you know, kind of less the style. If we don't pick it and be consistent, we're really monking with the minutes and we're raising the question of well, what is the way the organization approaches uh minute taking? We're creating the potential for excuse me, minute taking to be the uh subject of some skepticism. So consistency, whether they are long or short, really is the answer, and that's the best way to support minutes.
SPEAKER_02:So no stance by Michael Peregrine on the long or the short of it.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, for a price.
SPEAKER_02:So doesn't that circle back to our core purpose of meeting minutes?
SPEAKER_01:Uh yeah, I you know, I think it's also important to point out that that Justice Shrine isn't saying I've got a preference for short form or long form. Um but he recommends, and this is another point with respect to consistency, Rob, he recommends against deviating uh uh on individual situations, except in certain situations where, for example, um, and you've certainly been through this a lot in your position, you know, if we've got a big meeting coming up, if we've got, for example, the subject of an internal transaction or a special transaction uh that's being considered by the uh the border committee, then it may be very valuable to have long four minutes. Um he's he notes that that the more minutes resemble an attempt to create a transcript, and I know this is a subject that a lot of people ask, the more they do that, the less opportunity for meeting participants to credibly testify, and this is kind of the worst case scenario, credibly testify at a later date as to the meeting events that weren't chronicle in the minutes. So I think that you know we're talking about two things, uh, generally speaking, uh the being consistent and being willing to deviate, but only in situations where the subject of the meeting is important. Um the key point is that all parties are clear as to what method is being used as a corporate practice and why. And what jumps out to me, and we'll talk about this a little bit more today, uh, is not only the option to deviate in circumstances, uh, but also the emphasis on the responsibility of meeting participants and their familiarity with meeting events. And we're gonna I want to keep coming back and emphasizing it. We're gonna talk a lot uh in our podcast today about the style of minutes. We need to also emphasize the importance of the board members or committee members' familiarity with the events. So, does it to answer your question? Um, does it circle back to the whole purpose of meeting minutes? Sure it does. Um I don't I'd be interested in your view on this because I've always understood that there were probably you know three or four purposes for corporate minutes. Number one, and I think you see this in most corporate treatises, the real goal is to preserve an accurate and official record of governance proceedings. Uh you know, I think Delaware law establishes uh basic expectations that minutes covering big issues, you know, like compliance risk evaluation or evaluation of MA or uh internal investigation or something like this, will present the the, and this is important, the material factors on which the board uh considered in its deliberative process. That if I'm a scrivener, if I'm a minute taker, you know, that's the real question. Have we reflected in the minutes the factors which the board considered in whatever uh uh the subject matter was? Um again, going back to Justice Shrine, um, he pointed uh to in his our most recent article uh to a recent Delaware decision that noted that minutes are not transcripts, they do not need to be. In other words, I think the point is the scrivener can accomplish the goals of identifying the factors the board considered in its deliberative process without going to the use of a transcript. More on that later, and more on your AI question later. Uh, I think the justice interpreted the case law as emphasizing the need for minutes to you know, number one, summarize again the factors that the board considered in its decision making. Number two, document the material. This is another important thing, Rob, I think, document the materials uh received in connection with the meeting. Uh, and number three, summarizing the advice of the advisors gave. So factors considered, materials received, advice given. And to me, I'd add one more purpose, which is, and I think it's actually one we kind of forget about, good meeting minutes, I think, should remind board members uh uh or committee members of what they have accomplished in the meeting and what risks remain and tasks remain to be addressed in the next meeting. Um, and I think that becomes important as we have longer gaps between board meetings. So long way of saying meeting minutes just in my mind serve an incredible positive purpose uh and are really worth uh continuing education with the board and the committees.
SPEAKER_02:As a reviewer of minutes, I'm glad Justice Strine held the way he did. Uh, I view them less as a transcript and more of how can we uh best evaluate how the board came to a decision as we reflect back.
SPEAKER_01:I think that's right. And and one of the things, Rob, that that I like to focus on, and I'm very interested in your perspective as a general counsel, is you know, how can we, you know, uh uh from a CEO's perspective, I've always seen CEOs not being super fans of minutes, that you know, purposely and understandably trying to say, gee, let's let's help the board keep this meeting as lean and mean as possible. Let's not waste their time, let's remove the kinds of things that were uh uh that are a drag on their time and effort. So it becomes incumbent, I think, on council general counsel and outside counsel to help uh encourage both the chair and the CEO to invest more time in the meeting and minute taking and preparing process. Um, and my arguments would be number one. I mean, I think it's all you know, it's it really actually is it's kind of a compliance argument about saving money. Uh, number one, I think the the court's decisions are made clear that well-prepared minutes will be viewed really favorably when they're thorough, contemporaneous, and consistent. So this couple of C words again. Um, this matters, I think, especially, Rob, when you're trying to use minutes as evidence or in a persuasive manner and using director testimony that's consistent with the minutes. Um, I would also point out, and we'll talk about this more in a second, that these kinds of thorough and contemporaneous, consistent minutes also help satisfy legitimate books and records requests. And if you've ever been through one of those, they're a real pain in the tail. And again, well, this is another way where well-prepared minutes will help respond to those. Um, I think on the flip side, minutes aren't going are unlikely to carry much weight when they, you know, they're they're short. They're so short that they fail to cover key topics, have been approved long after the meeting actually occurred. Uh, don't make a reference to advisor presentations. Otherwise, you know, don't give whatever the reviewing party is, whether it's a court, whether it's uh a litigation investigative body, whatever, it doesn't give the uh the third party confidence that the minutes actually speak to the relevant factors that motivated a board's action. Confidence, I think that's you know, really important. We want to make minutes such that they can be used offensively or defensively in a way that we think that there are people will look at them and say, you know, uh uh this is this is useful. This is an accurate representation of what went on. Um you know, I I also can point out, want to point out, and those of you who work in the executive compensation area will recognize this or in the in the tax area, that minutes can be used to reflect the kinds of practices that are intended to satisfy certain statutory requirements or regulatory safe harbors. Uh, in you know, if in the uh corporate governance world, they have to be state laws that Rob, you and I have worked with uh in the past were uh on how how to essentially rectify a board decision that was made uh with a conflict of interest involved. In the tax exempt world, I think it's proving up the requirements for the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness and compensation decisions. Um, you can demonstrate without you know breaking your arm by patting yourself on the back, you can demonstrate that the committee or the board went through the steps that were necessary uh to satisfy whatever safe harbor that you're shooting on. And we could really go on and on from here. There's such a huge defensive value to well-prepared minutes that I I you know, I just can't figure out why more CEOs and board chairs don't place uh a greater emphasis on them. Investing, you know, and again, and this is just the lawyer talking, the the corporate governance lawyer, but investing time and energy in the minute taking and review and approval process, I think can save tons of money down the road. And I'll bet you that our our litigators and our white-collar colleagues that may be listening on this would agree.
SPEAKER_02:So, Michael, what I'm hearing from you is you may not like, or we may have to set up some time with the comedian and a board I'm involved in when every time we say, Does anybody have any comments on the minutes? And he said, I love the font. And he says that every single meeting.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's right. There you go. We like, well, yeah, he's paying attention.
SPEAKER_02:So, Michael, is there any urgency that the timing of preparation of board minutes? You know, it can be a painstaking process, and there's often lots of time uh between board and committee meetings. You know, is there a certain rush that we should put to this process?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I I think so. And this is another thing that kind of gets lost in translation a lot. It's a as to say, it's a pain in the tail to take take minutes, and it's a pain in the tail to review them. But I would say that there's plenty of urgency associated with it. Uh, number one, as I as I said before, and pointing out uh the Chief Justice's uh comments, the speed with which minutes are prepared and submitted for review and approval can make a big difference in how the reasonableness of board decision making on major issues is perceived by folks. Um the failure of key parties, as again the justice notes, the failure of the key parties, whether it's the board, the management team, or council to document and review and review the whole discourse of the prior meeting. I love this phrase, impoverishes the deliberative process itself, not just the record. And I want to say that again. This is essentially saying if you don't get this done on a timely basis, it carries the risk of impoverishing the deliberative process itself, not just the record. I love that phrase, and you can guarantee I'm gonna find a way to stick that in something I write in the future. Of course, I will attribute it to the justice. But nevertheless, the point is made. You're just shooting yourself in the foot if you take a long time. And of course, memories are dim. So I I think there is urgency. Get them done fast while people's memories are fresh. Uh, if if it, you know, I would hate to be in a situation where you're relying as a defensive mechanism on corporate minutes that were prepared three months after the board meeting occurred.
SPEAKER_02:Michael, I love that phrase as well.
SPEAKER_01:So you probably you can't use it. Let's there's only one lawyer per phrase.
SPEAKER_02:Justice Shrine didn't share it with all of us, huh? No, just me. So you mentioned the relationship of minutes to third-party books and records requests. You know, why is your belief that that's so important?
SPEAKER_01:Um, uh I think first and foremost, in my own personal practice, um, I've really seen over the last couple of years an increasing use of statutory rights under the non-for-profit laws as well as the business corporation laws of a board member or a former board member or someone else to make a company's books and records request. Uh, the people who want to create real problems, people who do not wish the organization uh goodwill, people who want to be a real pain in the tail will, and and their lawyers, I should put underscore, uh, will use books and record requests to um, it's a kind of a rope-a-dope strategy. And uh and you want to be able to get rid of those and respond to those quickly. And if you're in a manner of litigation, you want to be able to establish credibility of the board. So I think that thoughtful meditat practices can really help fend off challenges to the adequacy of the books and records that you're providing in response to a request. And I think it can discourage regulators too from pursuing their own enforcement actions with respect to major issues. And I've as I've said throughout this podcast, uh, Rob, the ability to produce formal board-level documents like minutes, resolutions, advisor presentations for key matters, and stuff like that, uh, if you can produce them immediately upon the request, it makes the company look good. It makes it look thoughtful uh uh and responsible in the context of judicial proceedings, regulatory inquiries, or whatever. But I do think absolutely uh uh it's shocking to me how books and records requests are abused uh by plannings council.
SPEAKER_02:So let's pivot, Michael, to us uh for a second to the approval process. Many boards, as part of their efforts to streamline their meetings, just put minutes in the consent agenda, and there it gets glossed over in many ways. What's your belief or thoughts on that process?
SPEAKER_01:Um, it wouldn't be my choice. Uh I think it really undermines the importance of minutes generally and their advanced review by the board in particular. I'm not I'm not a huge fan of the consent agenda generally. Um, even it it's a little bit better if it's it's by um you know uh advanced written approval or something where somebody has to meaningfully put their name on something and said, yes, I I consent to the approval of minutes. Um, but it's just kind of, as you said, it's it's the tendency that we're gonna gloss it over. So I think there's a real risk that improving it, including it in the consent agenda demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the value of minutes. Um if you have to use it in certain circumstances, uh the the board should be encouraged not to approve them just by road. Um this is especially with respect to minutes that relate to, as I said before, significant matters, uh, you know, big deals, strategic decisions, uh, litigation, risk compliance, whatnot. And I think in a situation if if the chair and the CEO say we're gonna put this on the consent agenda, then then I would want one or both of them send out a note saying, look, we're gonna do it this way, but please, please, please, before the meeting, make sure that you have reviewed these minutes uh because they're and don't hesitate to uh raise a question. And frankly, I have seen uh there is a tendency, I think, amongst uh uh conscientious directors to actually raise more questions if the agenda if the uh meeting minutes are being proposed in a consent agenda than if they're uh to be proposed for approval in a regular agenda. Um making exceptions to a law for minutes approval as part of an oral or written uh agenda approval process can be a real slippery slope. Um once once you do it, you know, it just becomes easier to do it again and again, and then it becomes standard practice. I don't think that I think that the savings and time of using a consent agenda practice, if it even is allowed under state law, will be more than offset uh by the danger of uh that you create by casting some kind of skepticism over the quality of the minutes.
SPEAKER_02:So, Michael, another common question in our space is retention periods. How long do we think corporate minutes should be kept?
SPEAKER_01:Oh, I have a firm answer on that, Rob. I have no idea. Um, but I actually think you know, it's like when we were young associates and law firms and doing state-by-state surveys of document production statutes in the in the 50 states. Um, but I do think the answer to that, not to be a smart ass, I think the answer to that reflects a combination of the applicable and state federal uh state and federal statutes regarding document uh preservation uh and advice from white-collar and litigation council as to the risks of deleting records when there's a general awareness of controversial subject matters. I I do think uh I'm a I'm a big fan of consulting um uh your white-collar litigation council with respect to minutes practice. It there's there's oftentimes, I should point out, there's a there's a uh there may be a dispute kind of a disagreement as to from a corporate governance perspective, as we've said, we want to build into the minutes uh enough information that it makes it clear uh that the board uh went through a deliberative, thoughtful process. That may be anathema to white-collar and litigation counsel who are saying you've we're we're giving too much up, we're saying too much. It's and you know, both sides are right, but you we you it's a question of really uh what the company values most from a risk profile perspective. You know, I think it's an issue that has to be addressed by the general counsel, the CEO, and the board chair, but you we need the advice of the white-collar guys and the litigation guys.
SPEAKER_02:So I've also heard some executives say, well, part of the value of having a lawyer is that my meeting minutes, if they're reviewed or taken by the lawyer, now become attorney client privileged. What's your belief on that?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, everything's covered by the privilege, isn't it, Rob? Just by having you in the room, doesn't that sprinkle the blue ferry magic dust uh uh on where privilege? You know, I think most of our listeners today uh understand where we're coming from here. Um and I and I think this is your question goes to is just another reason why there's a real value in having privilege-related training for members of the executive leadership team and to do it before meeting, you know, before we get into trouble rather than after. The answer obviously is no. Minutes are are usually treated as part of the ordinary, normal business records. There's you know, are there portions of uh every meeting in which there's a need to protect the privilege of legal advice provided by counsel who's attending the meeting? Yeah. Uh my advice is always for the general counsel to solicit the input again from the white-collar litigation guys who are going to be in the meeting to help establish a mechanism for within the conduct of the meeting as a whole, and thus the preparation of the minutes, to deal with privileged communications. You know, they'll say stuff like Um, at the board's request, counsel was asked to advise the board regarding regulatory considerations or litigation matters. Uh, and then you just simply, in the minute taking process, you do a rules of Mary Woods. You just don't Saying here, you delete, you don't reference uh the substance of that advice in the minutes. But I'm sure in your uh many years of practice as a general counsel, you have a process that you use uh internally uh to say we're gonna take a break now, we're gonna bring in outside counsel, this is a conversation subject to the privilege, and you and you essentially mark that to the uh whoever's taking the minutes.
SPEAKER_02:So in our industry right now that's so focused on financials and resources, we hear many COs and executives say, well, let's take advantage of AI. Let's see if AI can streamline the process. What's your take on AI recording board meetings and or generating board minutes from those recordings?
SPEAKER_01:Um, well, you know, the old fogey here, and as we've discussed on our podcast before, I'm not a huge fan of AI as a boardroom tool at this stage of the game. I'm not saying forever, but I'm a skeptic that it can um provide the value that's been that's promoted by so many fans of AI. I think there are too many questions, too many uncertainties, unclear as to the real benefit. And that's especially with respect to AI taking board minutes, um, not just AI providing all the materials for the board and stuff like that. Um I I think, again, to be fair, I I understand the goal of using AI as an efficiency tool, and but as that I don't think we're there because AI is not, unless I'm missing something, probably am, I don't think AI can make a distinction between comments and statements that are important from the perspective of a board's business and those aren't. Um I don't think AI can note where an officer or director or guest is actually emphasizing a certain point or saying something that's important to the board's overall consideration. Now that doesn't mean somebody like me who tends to use his hands a lot and point and and and do things of that nature, but it does mean something where a scrivener, if a speaker at a board meeting is emphasizing a certain point, the scrivener is able to reflect that. Uh the speaker with with uh emphasis said X. AI can't do that, I don't believe. And that could be important. Um more broadly, and and the uh AI people can tell us if this is accurate, but I think my understanding, they're using AI to take minutes creates potential confidentiality and cyber risks relating to whether the the AI provider can actually preserve the confidentiality of the meeting conversation and won't intentionally or otherwise use the data to train any other AI model. Uh, the risk that whether real people with the AI provider will be able to access the data or share it with third parties, and whether the provider itself has its own cybersecurity program to protect the data. You know, I think those are questions that can be answered. Maybe they can be answered uh in the uh favorably. But I do have these confidentiality concerns and how they also impact boardroom discussions about highly confidential matters like compliance risks and strategies as the litigation and investigations, as and they're recorded and reported, like we just talked about. To me, um AI-generated minutes are like the use of traditional taping to uh A B equipment to tape full board meetings and create a transcript. Um they they raise the same kind of state consent laws, uh, accuracy issues, confidentiality issues, and especially obstruction-related concerns if they're destroyed or deleted subsequently. I I'm sure we all know uh uh individuals who very conscientiously will use um a tape machine to record or to record minutes and then come back and compare their notes to the to the train to the tape uh to make sure they're accurate. And that's hard to argue against. The the downside comes again, uh uh whether or not that you know is that consistent? Does the state allow um, do you have to get the participant or the board members to uh authorize that taping? And uh you gotta be jumpy about the question of when you destroy uh or do you destroy uh the tape or and the obstruction of justice issues and how that relates. So a lot of questions, but more than anything else, I think I want a human being involved who can sense the emphasis, the the tenor uh uh and the emotion of a meeting and is able to describe that appropriately in minutes. Um a lot fewer problems with human minute taking, and I think ultimately greater accuracy and reliability. But I'm just one guy.
SPEAKER_02:Nope, I think that's a lot of solid advice there. So let me ask another process question. As a reviewer of minutes, how much latitude do you think we have to modify, change, revise from the initial draft?
SPEAKER_01:Uh this is another, you know, uh I think with general counsel incentive compensation should include a particular incentive goal of how quickly uh and completely uh he or she can review board minutes. Um, I I I my view, first of all, is get the review done as close as possible. Um you want the minute taking, the first preparation of the first draft to be as correct as possible. In other words, uh do your best job on the first cut of minutes. Be consistent in your approach to minute taking and putting put a fair amount of effort into getting the first draft right. Number two, I think more to your point, let's please limit the number of people who have their hands on the draft minutes before finalizing it. I get super uncomfortable with allowing very broad uh input before finalizing it because I think that creates it certainly creates bad optics, uh, or worse, that you know, the subsequent revisions aren't made in good faith. They're made by people who have a desire to push a particular perspective, uh, or they're made uh they want to delete things that to them might be embarrassing but are relevant to the overall uh reporting. So I recommend, again, sorry, but uh that's why I want your incentive comp to reflect this, that the general counsel review the review process, uh monitor the review process, set guidelines, just to really reduce the potential for revisionist history or the optics of revisionist history. And when you've got five, six, or seven people with their hands on the minutes, yeah, I think it's gonna take longer, and then it's going to diminish the credibility of those minutes.
SPEAKER_02:So, Michael, we've talked about a lot today, a lot of legal principles, a lot of theories, but one of the benefits for our membership for your expertise is a lot of practical pointers. So as we come down the home stretch of this podcast, what practical pointers would you want to make sure to share with our listeners related to minute taking?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I I have some thoughts, Robin. They've I they've kind of stuck with me for a long time, and they're pretty basic. Um, if it didn't happen or someone didn't say it or do it, it can't be documented and it can't be included in the minutes. And I'll repeat that. If it didn't happen or someone didn't say it or do it, it can't be documented and it can't be included in the minutes. And actually, there's some case law in Delaware where general counsel got in substantial trouble uh for altering minutes to reflect comments that really didn't occur in the meeting. Number two, if you haven't reflected in the documentation, then from the law's perspective, it's almost as if it didn't happen or someone didn't say it or do it. This goes back to uh the Chief Justice's comment about the credibility of minutes and wanting to make sure that there's consistency between people's recollection of the minutes and the truth and the minutes themselves. Uh, if it's not reflected in the minutes, then someone's gonna take the someone who doesn't have the company's best interest in mind is gonna say it didn't happen. And then you have to go through the whole process of uh uh witness testimony or or depositions or such that said it does, but you don't have the minutes to back up the testimony. That's number two. Number three, I I very important, minutes are not the antidote to deficient fiduciary conduct. If you screwed up in the way you exercise your fiduciary duties at a board meeting, the way you prepare the minutes aren't gonna make that prettier. It's gonna come out whether you if you did something or you didn't do something that's consistent with your duties, uh, you can't prepare minutes to overcome that. Or you can't, and if you have a short four minutes, it's gonna get out. So minutes are not an antidote to fiduciary, uh deficient fiduciary conduct. But the last one, Rob, is minutes are valuable. They can provide substantial defensive and I think offensive value to the company if they're done well. And I think ultimately, if you get into the uh the practice of doing this in a certain right prompt way, um, it it's just an enormous uh protection for the organization.
SPEAKER_02:So, Michael, thanks as always for sharing your thoughts with us. I've taken extensive meeting minutes of our conversation today.
SPEAKER_01:I appreciate not on AI, I hope.
SPEAKER_02:Not with AI, but without the bears to watch this weekend. Can you give me a timely review of those minutes?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's absolutely be right back to you.
SPEAKER_02:So we'll be back again next month with our next podcast and our continuing series where we'll focus on three important governance developments to our new Delaware decisions related to impacting the application of the CAREMARC standard. We'll also look for the response of the Audit and Compliance Committee to the latest policy positions of the Department of Justice as it relates to fraud enforcement.
SPEAKER_00:So, Michael, thanks for the robust conversation today and look forward to the subscribe to AHLA Speaking of Health Law wherever you get your podcasts. For more information about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit AmericanHealth Law.org and stay updated on breaking healthcare industry news from the major media outlets with AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast, exclusively for AHLA comprehensive members. To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/daily podcast.