Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Courts Turn Up Corporate Heat

By Robert Reder and Scott Edelman
September 01, 2003

The highly publicized accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other large corporations have prompted a concerted legislative and regulatory response from Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the national securities exchanges. While there has been little in the way of legislative reaction at the state level, several recent court decisions reflect that state corporate law is not immune from the impact of these scandals. Using existing judicial doctrine, but applying it in a fashion that appears to indicate an increasing toughness with respect to corporate directors and officers who do not live up to their obligations, the judiciary has turned up the heat on corporate fiduciaries.

This heightened level of scrutiny is highlighted in several recent court decisions: In Re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 15452 (Del. Ch. May 28, 2003), In Re Abbott Laboratories Derivative Shareholders Litigation, 325 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. March 28, 2003) and John S. Pereira, as Trustee of Trace International Holdings, Inc. and Trace Foam Sub, Inc. vs. Marshall S. Cogan et al., 294 B.R. 449 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2003). Significantly, each of these decisions potentially limits the scope of the protections provided to directors by the business judgment rule, as well as the protections afforded by “exculpatory” provisions that are expressly provided for by state corporate statutes in order to shield directors from liability for breaches of their duty of care. Under these exculpatory provisions, director liability can generally be limited only to those actions constituting 1) a breach of the duty of loyalty (eg, a theft of corporate opportunity or an improper self-dealing transaction), or 2) acts or omissions that are not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.