Good Faith Issues
December 27, 2004
In recent years, Delaware courts have begun to refer to a "triad" of fiduciary duties -- consisting of loyalty, care and good faith -- thereby suggesting that good faith constitutes a duty separate from the duty of loyalty. More importantly, recent opinions of the Delaware courts have indicated that conduct that traditionally would have been viewed as implicating only the duty of care may be found to constitute a breach of the duty of good faith. This analytical shift is significant: Directors are typically exculpated, and both directors and officers are typically indemnified and insured, for breaches of their duty of care, while exculpation and indemnification by the corporation are impermissible, and insurance coverage exclusions may apply, in respect of conduct that constitutes bad faith.
Compliance Hotline
December 27, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Due Diligence: Beyond the Financial Statements
December 27, 2004
Due diligence of an acquisition always begins with the careful examination of the financial statements, but now demands a complete evaluation of internal controls and transaction integrity. Unlike finely polished financial statements, internal controls and transaction integrity are hard to spin; any varnish quickly wears off when scrutinized. After living through failed acquisitions and now an increased regulatory environment, corporate risk executives are refining their due diligence processes. By measuring transaction integrity and the effectiveness of internal controls, this new due diligence provides a view into the selling company's operational discipline and overall culture for tolerating policy violations.
In The Courts
December 27, 2004
The latest rulings you need to know.
One FCPA World
December 27, 2004
Suppose a group of officers of one of your foreign-based corporate clients, with no offices or businesses in the United States, makes a rare visit to the U.S. for an industry-related conference. Between sessions, they break off to participate in a conference call with employees overseas. The subject is whether to authorize political contributions in another country in the hope of getting business there, and they tell their compatriots to proceed. As soon as the conference is over, they head home. Can this one call be the basis for an assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over your client and the officers under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Surprisingly, the answer is yes, in spite of the entirely accidental nature of the contact.
Daubert Motions in Business Crimes Cases
December 27, 2004
White-collar defense attorneys face many challenges to overcome in successfully representing their clients. In federal criminal cases, the challenges have increased dramatically due to the heightened punishments that can be assessed against "non-cooperating" individuals or businesses who insist upon their rights to a trial. Consider the recent case of Jamie Olis, a mid-level accountant at an energy company, who (unlike two of his superiors) went to trial and was convicted of various fraud charges for having engaged in "income-smoothing" or "cookie-jar accounting" of the company's earnings history to try to help the company meet its earnings expectations. Although Olis received no financial benefit for his misguided efforts, he got 24 years' imprisonment (compared with his cooperative bosses, whose sentences were capped at a 5-year maximum under plea agreements). The sentence was largely due to the calculations of the "amount of loss."
Internal Investigations and Outside Auditors
December 27, 2004
The Problem: You are the CEO of a publicly traded company that has been rocked by a highly publicized scandal. When the story first broke, your General Counsel told you that the company had to hire an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation. She also told you that the report of the internal review might have to be turned over to DOJ and the SEC if those agencies insisted on having a copy. You worried about whether plaintiffs in the inevitable shareholder lawsuits would claim that they, too, were entitled to copies of the report, but you deferred to the judgment of your General Counsel and authorized the internal review. Now a new issue has arisen. Long before DOJ or the SEC asks for the results of the internal investigation, and well before a single shareholder suit is filed, your General Counsel gets a call from your company's outside auditor saying that they want a copy of the internal review. You ask your General Counsel whether providing the report to your auditor will waive its privileged status. She says the answer probably is "no." Is your General Counsel right?
Delaware Chancery Court Takes Fresh Look At Zone of Insolvency
December 27, 2004
Over a decade ago, a Delaware Chancery Court's footnote in <i>Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Pathe Communications</i>, 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. 1991), established the "zone of insolvency" as something to be feared by directors and officers and served as a catalyst for countless creditor lawsuits. Claims by creditors committee and trustees against directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duties owed to creditors have since become commonplace. But in a decision that may have equally great repercussion both in the Boardroom and in bankruptcy cases, the Delaware Chancery Court has revisited zone-of-insolvency case law and limited this ever-expanding legal theory.
Section 547(C)
December 27, 2004
In recent years, one of the hottest topics in bankruptcy law has been the use and appropriateness of critical vendor orders (hereinafter, CVOs). Critics argue that CVOs directly contradict the mandate of the Bankruptcy Code requiring equal treatment of similarly situated creditors. Even worse, critics point out, is that requests for CVOs are often presented, and the CVO entered, in the first days of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on shortened and limited notice to a minimal amount of creditors, days or weeks prior to the appointment of any statutory committees under Section 1102. Thus, it is often the case that the very creditors that are being discriminated against by court sanctioned preferential behavior are not given the notice and/or do not have the knowledge to allow them to appear and object to the entry of the CVO.
