In House: Corporate Governance Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in Corporate Governance Category

Charles Malik, a Lebanese philosopher and diplomat, once said, "The fastest way to change society is to mobilize the women of the world."

This year, in honor of International Women's Day (March 8), we've rounded up our Top 5 In House blog posts about women mobilizing to create change in the corporate legal department:

While Walmart's in-house counsel may know all the rules regarding age and disability discrimination, some of Walmart's in-store employees clearly do not. The EEOC filed suit against Walmart on behalf of David Moorman, a former manager at a Walmart store in Keller, Texas, alleging age and disability discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Moorman claimed he was taunted and ridiculed by direct supervisors who called him "old man" and "old food guy." He was also allegedly denied reasonable accommodations for his diabetes (he requested a change in work duties) and was subsequently fired.

Walmart has agreed to settle the case, and to pay Moorman $150,000. Walmart also must train its employees on what conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination or harassment under the ADA and the ADEA.

Several years ago, the Justice Department announced it was cracking down on violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the federal statute that makes it a crime to bribe foreign government officials in order to get business.

Last week, the French engineering company Alstom interrupted its Merry Christmas to plead guilty to FCPA violations and pay $772 million in fines -- the largest ever for foreign bribery, according to The New York Times.

When you're the CEO of a new company, when is the time to sell your shares and make some actual cash? The answer is probably "not very soon" -- at least not so soon that it looks like there's some impropriety.

Case in point: Mark Pincus, CEO of Zynga, the company that makes those Facebook games where you grow pumpkins or mine diamonds, or something. Thanks to some questionable conduct, some of Zynga's directors are in Delaware Chancery Court.

30 Companies Sign Pro-Gay Marriage Amicus Brief: Good Idea?

Gay marriage is a pretty divisive issue in this country, though it is becoming less so as more states legalize same-sex nuptials. And corporations, typically, steer far away from controversial topics, for obvious reasons.

It is refreshing then, to see Ben & Jerry's join 29 other companies in an "Employers' Amicus Brief" filed in support of same-sex marriage. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, and to establish a uniform national rule that respects the rights of same-sex couples to tie the knot.

Who else joined them on the brief? And will there be any negative business consequences?

A corporation's directors, as agents of the shareholders, are where the buck stops in terms of corporate governance. They're also ultimately responsible for oversight of management.

But executives in the C-suites have much more involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company than the board of directors. As a result, it's more important than ever to have a strong board of directors. That's not always the case, though. Inside Counsel points out that replacing underperforming directors is a concern for at least one-third of directors in a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of corporate directors.

Notably, age is a concern: Can directors effectively govern if they're very old? And if they're not governing effectively, what can be done about it?

The concept of ultra vires has generally protected corporate directors from shareholder lawsuits on the ground that the corporation acted outside the scope of its authority. But what if a corporation wants to spend extra money ensuring that, for example, its supply chain is conflict-free? It's probably cheaper to employ slave labor in other countries than it is to contract with manufacturers that are engaging in humane business practices. Arguably, failing to cut costs to the bone impedes shareholder profits and might be grounds for a lawsuit.

Enter the "public benefit corporation," a relatively new type of corporate form that allows corporations to consider motives other than profit when making business decisions.

What happens when you learn about a potential whistleblower -- someone who's gone through an internal process to report wrongdoing? Do you tense up a little bit? Feel tempted to release the hounds? Want to circle the wagons?

Of course, you know that retaliating against a whistleblower can subject your company to penalties. Everybody does it, though. Ross Brooks, a partner with Sanford Heisler's whistleblower protection practice, told Inside Counsel that companies retaliate about nine times out of 10. Yet, there are ways to deal with whistleblowers that don't involve a pink slip.

Here are a few courses of action in-house counsel may want to consider:

Littler Mendelson, the largest global employment law practice, recently released a report in which it documents the "swelling tide" of class actions brought against employers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In the report, it discusses why the number of FCRA class actions is growing, and what your company can do to protect, or defend, itself from a class action. Here's a brief summary of the report, which you can read in full by clicking here.

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision ruffled the feathers of all of us who believe women's health issues belong between a woman and a doctor, not a woman, a doctor, and middle management. Unforeseen issues of corporate governance and liability have also escaped from the Pandora's Box that is Hobby Lobby.

On NPR's "All Things Considered" this week, correspondent Wade Goodwyn came up with another unexpected result: the loss of the corporate veil. Goodwyn talked to Gregory S. Crespi, whose law review article "The Reverse Pierce Doctrine" was cited in Hobby Lobby's briefing. The article, published in 1990 in Journal of Corporate Law, posits a model framework for analyzing and deciding cases where a person with a claim against a "corporate insider" is actually trying to treat the insider and the corporation as a single entity.