Corporate Governance

Subscribe to Corporate Governance via RSS
Tim J. Leech

Recent case law developments in Delaware’s courts underscore the importance for corporate boards to monitor “mission critical” operations at their companies. These developments have important corporate governance implications, as I detailed in a September blog post (here). In the following guest post, Tim J. Leach, FCPA FCA Managing Director Risk Oversight Solutions Inc. takes a deeper look at the corporate governance implications from the recent duty of oversight/duty to monitor case law. I would like to thank Tim for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Tim’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: “Mission Critical”: Director Liability Ticking Time Bomb

One of the hot topics in the corporate space over the last several months has been the question whether Delaware corporations should consider reincorporating in another state, such as Texas or Nevada. Much of the discussion in this re-domestication debate has centered on recent controversial decisions out of Delaware’s courts. The ongoing discussion of these issues resurfaced in the last few days with the news that Delaware Chancellor Katherine McCormick had rejected Tesla’s motion for reconsideration of her earlier rejection of Elon Musk’s $55.8 billion pay package.

A recent law review article by Yale Law Professor Jonathan R. Macey addresses the question whether, in light of the recent case law developments in the state’s courts, Delaware corporations will now be “Leaving for Las Vegas.” Professor Macey’s article considers the extent to which recent Delaware case law developments may motivate key Delaware constituents to consider incorporation alternatives. As discussed below, Professor Macey’s article has in turn triggered further discussion of the central questions about the recent output of Delaware’s courts in corporate and securities lawsuits.Continue Reading Will Delaware Corporations Be “Leaving for Las Vegas”?

Michael W. Peregrine
Ashley Hoff

There is no doubt that the upcoming change in Presidential administration will have important implications across a wide range of issue. In some cases, the change will present unique challenges for corporate boards. As boards work their way through these changes and challenges, they will also face an altered corporate compliance oversight environment. In the following guest post, Michael W. Peregrine and Ashley Hoff of the McDermott Will & Emery LLP law firm consider the implications of this changed environment for corporate boards. I would like to thank Michael and Ashley for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the author’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: The Board’s Post-Election Oversight of Corporate Compliance

Michael W. Peregrine

On Monday, the National Association of Corporate Directors released a Blue Ribbon Commission Report providing substantive guidance for corporate directors on board oversight of artificial intelligence. In the following guest post, Michael W. Peregrine, a partner at the McDermott Will & Emery law firm, reviews the Blue Ribbon Commission report and summarizes…

In last Thursday’s post, I noted recent case law developments in which federal court breach of the duty of oversight claims against the boards of Wells Fargo and Abbott Laboratories had survived motions to dismiss, at least in part. I also noted that these decisions have important implications for board governance processes and documentation. As I have continued to consider the implications of these recent decisions and other developments concerning the so-called Caremark duties relating to board members’ fiduciary duties of oversight, I developed further thoughts on the steps well-advised boards will want to take to put themselves in a better position to defend themselves against these kinds of claims. I have set out my thought below.Continue Reading Corporate Governance, Board Risk Management, and Duty to Monitor Case Law Developments

At this point, there is nearly universal agreement that artificial intelligence (AI) is (or at least will be) transformative. It is also clear that as companies struggle to adapt to the new technology, they also face a host of challenges, including disclosure and regulatory risks, and the related risk of litigation. As a result, AI poses an exceptionally difficult set of circumstances for corporate directors, as discussed in an August 14, 2024, Wall Street Journal article entitled “Why AI Risks Are Keeping Board Members Up at Night” (here). As the article makes clear, while many directors recognize the importance of getting a handle on AI and how it might affect their companies, they are struggling to find the right approach even as AI-related questions become more pervasive.Continue Reading Boards of Directors and AI-Related Concerns

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) presents just about every enterprise with both opportunities and risks. AI also represents a challenge for companies and their boards as the companies seek to incorporate AI Into operations, functions, and processes. Because of AI’s potentially disruptive impact in many industries and for individual companies, many boards may find themselves under scrutiny for the way they address the risks associated with AI. All of which raises the question of the appropriate ways for boards to address and manage the AI-associated risks, a topic discussed in a July 22, 2024, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance post by attorneys from Debevoise & Plimpton law firm entitled “AI: Are Boards Paying Attention?” (here).  Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Boards

The “G” in ESG stands for “governance.” ESG is of course of one of the most au courant topics in the corporate and securities world, and the inclusion of governance as one of the three ESG pillars inferentially suggests that governance is a new – or at least newly relevant – topic. The reality is, however, that governance is a perennial topic. Its relevance has never diminished, and it remains as important as ever. However, principles of corporate governance do evolve with changing times. It is this evolution of corporate governance that is at the heart of a new book on the topic.

The book, which is entitled “Corporate Governance: Understanding the Board-Management Relationship,” and was written by H. Stephen Grace, Jr., Ph.D, Founder and President of H.S. Grace & Company, Inc.; Suzanne Gilbert, Member Board of Advisors of Grace & Co. Consultancy, Inc.; Joseph P. Monteleone, Esq, Principal Catamount Services, LLC; and S. Lawrence Prendergast, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Turrell Fund, explores the values-based origin of governance principles; examines the recent progression of governance concepts and considers several recent circumstances that explain the changing concepts; and reviews some of the practical implications of these changing concepts and principles. The book, more information about which can be found here, is a useful and readable summary of current understandings and best practices in corporate governance.Continue Reading Book Review: Corporate Governance: Understanding the Board-Management Relationship

Governance Issues frequently are the heart of corporate and securities lawsuits. For that reason, the testimony in this type of litigation of corporate governance and management practices experts can be indispensable. In the following guest post, Dr. Stephen Grace, President and Founder of H.S. Grace & Company, Inc., Alvin H. Fenichel, CPA, Senior Advisor at H.S. Grace & Company, Inc., and Joseph P. Monteleone, Esq., the Principal in Catamount Services LLC,  take a look at the ways in which the testimony of these experts can be utilized in these kinds of lawsuits, as well as the related question of who is qualified to serve as a governance expert. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Is It Ever Too Early To Engage A Corporate Governance Expert?

In a lengthy and detailed opinion, the Fifth Circuit has rejected two petitions challenging the SEC’s approval of Nasdaq’s board diversity rules. The rules require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have women and minority directors on their boards or explain why they don’t. The petitioners had argued that the rules violated constitutional free speech and equal…