Under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, corporate officials can be held liable for misconduct in which they did not participate and of which they have been entirely unaware, based on their responsibility for the corporation itself. As shown in a July 27, 2012 opinion from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (here
To Encourage the Others?: Imposing Personal Liability for Corporate Fines on Individual Officers
In a ruling that has gained a great deal of attention and scrutiny, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the “neither admit nor deny” settlement in the SEC’s enforcement action against Citigroup, a ruling that is now on appeal in the Second Circuit (about which refer here). Among other things, Judge
Guest Post: Banking Agencies Challenge California’s Business Judgment Rule: Will This Expand Officer and Inside Director Liability?
Among the important questions that will need to be answered in connection with the current wave of failed bank litigation is the question of extent to which the non-director officers will be able to defend themselves in reliance on the business judgment rule.
In the following guest post, Jonathan Joseph (pictured to the
Liability Without Culpability: A Deeply Troublesome Trend
One of the most basic notions in our legal system is that liability attaches only to those who act with intent or knowledge. But as detailed in a front-page September 27, 2011 Wall Street Journal article (here), Congress has in recent decades enacted numerous provisions imposing criminal liability regardless of intent. Among the