It has now been seven months since the U.S. Department of Justice announced — in the form of a September 9, 2015 memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates — that it was adopting a policy focused on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. The keystone of the policy embodied in the Yates memo is that for companies to receive cooperation credit, they must completely disclosure “all relevant facts about individual misconduct.” As discussed below, the Yates memo is having an impact in a number of ways. However, according to an April 22, 2016 publication from the Clifford Chance law firm (here), the Yates memo may be having unintended consequences – it may actually be deterring companies from divulging information.
Continue Reading The Yates Memo: What Impact So Far?
The Yates Memo and the Potential Liabilities of Corporate Directors
Last September, amidst considerable fanfare, the U.S. Department of Justice released a new directive – now universally known as the Yates Memo – in which it restated and reinforced the agency’s commitment to targeting corporate executives in cases of corporate wrongdoing. The cornerstone of the agency’s new policies is the specification that in order for a company to qualify for any cooperation credit in connection with a DoJ investigation, the company must provide the agency with all relevant facts about the individuals involved in the misconduct. This same focus on individuals has been echoed by top SEC officials, including the SEC’s current chair. With several months’ of experience now under the new directive, it seems worth asking how the SEC renewed focus on individuals has translated into practice and what the implications are for corporate directors.
Continue Reading The Yates Memo and the Potential Liabilities of Corporate Directors
Guest Post: Seven Lessons Learned from D&O Litigation During the Financial Crisis
The financial crisis generated a great deal of litigation, much involving the directors and officers of companies affected by the crisis. As the crisis recedes further into the past and as the litigation it generated winds down, it is worth taking a look at what happened to determine what can be learned from the litigation. In the following guest post, Dennis Klein of the Hughes Hubbard & Reed law firm provides an overview of what he views as the takeaways for corporate directors and officers from the financial crisis D&O litigation. A longer version of this article will appear in the April 2016 issue of The Review of Banking and Financial Services. I would like to thank Dennis for his willingness to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to readers of this site. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Dennis’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Seven Lessons Learned from D&O Litigation During the Financial Crisis
PLUS Webinar This Thursday: “The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015”
On Thursday, January 21, 2016, I will be participating as the speaker in a Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) webinar to discuss this past year’s top stories in the world of directors and officers’ liability and insurance. The webinar will be based on my recent blog post, The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015. This webinar, which is free for both PLUS members and non-members, is a lead-in for the 2016 PLUS D&O Symposium, to be held February 3-4, 2016, in New York. The webinar will begin at 11 am EST and last one hour. Information about the webinar, including registration instructions, can be found here.
Continue Reading PLUS Webinar This Thursday: “The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015”
Delaware Courts’ Rejection of Disclosure-Only Settlements Results in Fewer Merger Objection Lawsuit Filings
In my recent survey of the top stories in 2015 in the world of D&O, I noted that one of last year’s most important developments was the signal that several of the judges on the Delaware Court of Chancery sent in a series of rulings that they would not longer routinely approve the kind of “disclosure-only settlement” that frequently resolves merger objection lawsuits. According to Liz Hoffman’s January 11, 2016 Wall Street Journal article focused on Delaware Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster and entitled “The Judge Who Shoots Down Merger Lawsuits” (here), after Laster’s October 2015 decision rejecting the proposed settlement in the H-P/Aruba Networks merger objection lawsuit, there were dramatically fewer merger objection lawsuits filed in Delaware, and in fact some previously filed lawsuits are being withdrawn.
Continue Reading Delaware Courts’ Rejection of Disclosure-Only Settlements Results in Fewer Merger Objection Lawsuit Filings
The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015
It was an eventful year in the world of directors’ and officers’ liability in 2015. Many of the year’s key events significantly changed the D&O liability environment, while other developments during the year could alter the D&O insurance marketplace itself. Many of 2015’s developments have important implications for 2016 – and possibly for years to come. The list of the Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015 is set out below with an eye toward these future possibilities.
Continue Reading The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2015
New Dimensions in Director Liability Exposure
It will not come as news to anyone that corporate directors face the possibility of direct personal liability for their actions or omissions in the capacities as directors. However, the scope of these individuals’ potential liability exposures can and does change. As a result of recent legal developments, at least two new areas of potential liability exposure for corporate directors have emerged. As discussed below, a recent federal district court decision suggests that directors can be held personally liable under both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for whistleblower retaliation, and a recent California legislative enactment provides that corporate directors can be held personally liable for violations of the state’s wage and hour laws.
Continue Reading New Dimensions in Director Liability Exposure
A Trio of Delaware Decisions Reaffirms Corporate Director Protections
Because the vast majority of U.S. publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware, legal developments in Delaware have a particularly important impact on legal standards governing corporate conduct in the U.S. Delaware law is particularly influential with respect to the responsibilities and potential liability exposures of corporate directors. In a series of recent opinions written by Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr., the Delaware Supreme Court has, according to an October 22, 2015 memo from the Skadden law firm (here) “reaffirmed Delaware’s deference to the business judgment of disinterested corporate decision-makers and restored important protections for directors that had been weakened by prior court decisions.”
Continue Reading A Trio of Delaware Decisions Reaffirms Corporate Director Protections
The “Myth” of Outside Director Liability and the Critical Importance of D&O Insurance
In the world of corporate governance, there are a number of common presumptions about board structure and practices. However, according to a recent paper, many of these presumptions may in fact represent corporate governance “myths.” In their September 30, 2015 paper entitled “Seven Myths of Boards of Directors” (here) Stanford Business School Professor David Larcker and Resercher Brian Tayan examine several “commonly accepted beliefs about boards of directors that are not substantiated by empirical evidence.”
Continue Reading The “Myth” of Outside Director Liability and the Critical Importance of D&O Insurance
SEC Enforcement Actions Against Outside Directors
From time to time, the SEC reiterates its view of the critical gatekeeper role companies’ outside directors play in safeguarding investors’ interests. Nevertheless, it has been relatively rare for SEC to pursue enforcement actions against outside directors based on an alleged failure to fulfill that role. But while these actions are rare, the agency does periodically bring enforcement actions against directors whom the agency contends shirked their duties.
Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Actions Against Outside Directors