In the following guest post, my good friend JJ Chan takes a look at some key principles of Malaysian corporate law, including important appellate cases interpreting the Business Judgement Rule under Malaysian law. JJ is the Managing Partner of the Chan Ban Eng law firm in Malaysia. I would like to thank JJ for allowing me to publish his article on this site. Here is JJ’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Business Judgment Rule in Malaysian Corporate Law
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and processes are becoming increasingly pervasive in many industry sectors and in many phases of business. AI use is also spreading to corporate processes and functions. For example, as I recently noted, some companies many be using AI tools to draft the MD&A in their periodic reports. And, at least according to a recent post in the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance by lawyers from the Debevoise law firm, some corporate boards may be “adopting AI meeting tools to assist with the drafting of board and committee minutes.” As the memo’s authors note, board adoption of AI tools for these purposes may offer some benefits, but the use of the tools also entails risk, which board members will want to take into account in using the tools.
The June 23, 2025, law firm memo, entitled “AI Can Draft Board Minutes – But Should It? Considerations for Public Companies,” can be found here.Continue Reading AI Tools in the Boardroom
We live in a time of significant geopolitical risk, from the highly volatile conditions in the Middle East, to the ongoing war in Ukraine, to continuing tensions in the South China Sea, among many other concerns. These risks of course have important ramifications, including among many other things as a source of potential D&O liability exposure. In prior posts (most recently here), I have highlighted ways that geopolitical issues, such as, for example, trade sanctions, can translate into corporate and securities litigation. In the latest example of this phenomenon, on December 19, 2024, a plaintiff securityholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz, a Kazakh company whose American Depositary Shares (ADS) trade on Nasdaq. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that the company misrepresented the extent to which its bank subsidiary was being used for unlawful purposes, including assisting Russians with evading sanctions in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. A copy of the December 19, 2024 complaint in the case can be found here.Continue Reading Geopolitical Risk, Trade Sanctions, and D&O Risk Exposure
In what is as far as I know the largest shareholder derivative lawsuit settlement ever as measured by dollar value, the defendant board members in the Tesla Board compensation derivative suit have agreed to settle the case for a combination of payments and transfers with a total value of $735 million. The agreement settles a Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit that a public pension fund shareholder filed against the board in June 2020 alleging that the since at least 2017 the board had received “unfair and excessive” compensation. The settlement is subject to court approval. A copy of the parties’ stipulation of settlement in the case, filed with the court on July 14, 2023, can be found here.Continue Reading Tesla Board Compensation Derivative Suit Settles for $735 Million
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is one of those singular events, charged with implications and fraught with dangerous possibilities, but that is also still so recent that it is difficult to discern what it ultimately will mean. Earlier this week, in an excellent webinar presented by the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at the
As readers of this blog know, the various board diversity lawsuits that the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed in late 2020 and early 2021 have uniformly fared poorly in the courts. In the latest dismissal motion ruling in one of these suits, the court in the board diversity suit filed against the directors of Cisco Systems has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, albeit without prejudice. The court’s ruling in the Cisco Systems board diversity suit is noteworthy because the court addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s Section 14(a) claims. A copy of the court’s March 1, 2022 dismissal order can be found here.
Continue Reading Board Diversity Suit Against Cisco Systems’ Directors Dismissed
The “economic structure” of SPACs creates an ‘inherent conflict” between the SPAC sponsor and the SPAC’s public shareholders, according to a new paper from two leading law professors. The conflict arises from the SPAC sponsor’s financial interest in completing a merger even if the merger is not value-creating, which may conflict with the shareholders’ interest in redeeming their shares if they believe that the proposed merger is disadvantageous. Because of the potential conflict, it is critical that the SPAC’s board independently reviews the proposed merger and inform shareholders about the merger with appropriate candor. However, if the board members’ compensation aligns their interests with those of the sponsor, the sponsor’s conflict could extend to the directors themselves – a circumstance the paper’s authors call the “epitome of bad governance.”
The solution, the authors suggest, is for the SPAC to structure the board members’ compensation in a way that aligns the directors’ financial interests with those of the shareholders. Moreover, the authors contend, courts reviewing shareholders’ allegations that a SPAC’s board members breached their fiduciary duties should consider the potential for conflict inherent in the SPAC’s structure and accordingly review the underlying circumstances using the “entire fairness” standard. These considerations are relevant to cases now pending in the Delaware courts, which have the potential to be “groundbreaking.” Stanford Law Professor Michael Klausner and NYU Law Professor Michael Ohlrogge’s November 19, 2021 paper entitled “SPAC Governance: In Need of Judicial Review” can be found here.
Continue Reading SPACs’ Structural Conflicts, Shareholder Litigation, and Judicial Review
The filing of data breach and other cybersecurity incident-related shareholder derivative lawsuits against corporate boards is nothing new; plaintiffs’ lawyers have been filing these kinds of claims now for several years. However, in recent months, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have shown an increasing inclination to file these claims based on allegations of breach of the duty of oversight. The latest example of this type of claim is the shareholder derivative suit filed this week against the board of T-Mobile USA. Although the plaintiff’s complaint does not expressly use the words “breach of the duty of oversight” or refer to “Caremark duties,” the complaint does refer to the board’s alleged “failure to monitor” and to the board’s alleged failure “to heed red flags” – the very kind of allegations that are at the heart of breach of the duty of oversight claims. A copy of the plaintiff’s complaint in the November 29, 2021 lawsuit can be found here.
Continue Reading Data Breach-Related Derivative Suit Filed Against T-Mobile USA Board
In the latest example of claimants seeking to assert the newly revitalized type of claim for breach of the duty of oversight against corporate boards, plaintiff shareholders have filed a derivative lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against certain past and current directors of technology company SolarWinds, based on the massive cybersecurity incident involving the company’s software and systems discovered in December 2020. As discussed below, there are several interesting features of this lawsuit in light of recent developments involving claims for alleged breaches of the duty of oversight. A copy of the heavily redacted publicly available version of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the SolarWinds board can be found here.
Continue Reading Cybersecurity-Related Breach of the Duty of Oversight Claim Filed Against SolarWinds Board
Regular readers will recall that last year and earlier this year, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a series of shareholder derivative lawsuits against the directors of several companies alleging that the lack of diversity on the companies’ boards breached the directors’ fiduciary duties. In the latest ruling to address preliminary motions in these various cases, the court in the board diversity lawsuit filed against directors and officers of Oracle has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As discussed in greater detail below, the plaintiffs’ track record on the board diversity lawsuits is not good so far; the ruling in the Oracle suit represents the third successive dismissal granted in these suits.
Continue Reading Dismissal Motion Granted in Oracle Board Diversity Lawsuit