Caremark in the arc of compliance history

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

In 1996, the Delaware Chancery Court's In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation decision was the first to recognize a director's fiduciary duty to oversee a corporation's compliance and ethics program. Two decades later, this Article locates Caremark within the ongoing history of compliance and ethics programs by tracing the parallel evolutions of the Caremark duty and another compliance and ethics landmark-the 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provided the first legal incentive for organizations to design, implement, and operate an effective compliance and ethics program. These two histories converged at an important point that yielded the Caremark decision: The Sentencing Guidelines influenced the 1996 Chancery Court decision to recognize the Caremark duty. Over the following twenty years, though, these histories sharply diverged. While amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines developed a robust account of director responsibilities, Delaware case law stalled, leaving Caremark's promise unfulfilled.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages647-680
Number of pages34
JournalTemple Law Review
Volume90
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

moral philosophy
history
director
court decision
case law
amendment
corporation
incentive
responsibility

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

Caremark in the arc of compliance history. / McGreal, Paul.

In: Temple Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, 01.06.2018, p. 647-680.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{f901a33d2f224c6eace696002eb52fca,
title = "Caremark in the arc of compliance history",
abstract = "In 1996, the Delaware Chancery Court's In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation decision was the first to recognize a director's fiduciary duty to oversee a corporation's compliance and ethics program. Two decades later, this Article locates Caremark within the ongoing history of compliance and ethics programs by tracing the parallel evolutions of the Caremark duty and another compliance and ethics landmark-the 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provided the first legal incentive for organizations to design, implement, and operate an effective compliance and ethics program. These two histories converged at an important point that yielded the Caremark decision: The Sentencing Guidelines influenced the 1996 Chancery Court decision to recognize the Caremark duty. Over the following twenty years, though, these histories sharply diverged. While amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines developed a robust account of director responsibilities, Delaware case law stalled, leaving Caremark's promise unfulfilled.",
author = "Paul McGreal",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "647--680",
journal = "Temple Law Review",
issn = "0899-8086",
publisher = "Temple University",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Caremark in the arc of compliance history

AU - McGreal, Paul

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - In 1996, the Delaware Chancery Court's In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation decision was the first to recognize a director's fiduciary duty to oversee a corporation's compliance and ethics program. Two decades later, this Article locates Caremark within the ongoing history of compliance and ethics programs by tracing the parallel evolutions of the Caremark duty and another compliance and ethics landmark-the 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provided the first legal incentive for organizations to design, implement, and operate an effective compliance and ethics program. These two histories converged at an important point that yielded the Caremark decision: The Sentencing Guidelines influenced the 1996 Chancery Court decision to recognize the Caremark duty. Over the following twenty years, though, these histories sharply diverged. While amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines developed a robust account of director responsibilities, Delaware case law stalled, leaving Caremark's promise unfulfilled.

AB - In 1996, the Delaware Chancery Court's In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation decision was the first to recognize a director's fiduciary duty to oversee a corporation's compliance and ethics program. Two decades later, this Article locates Caremark within the ongoing history of compliance and ethics programs by tracing the parallel evolutions of the Caremark duty and another compliance and ethics landmark-the 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provided the first legal incentive for organizations to design, implement, and operate an effective compliance and ethics program. These two histories converged at an important point that yielded the Caremark decision: The Sentencing Guidelines influenced the 1996 Chancery Court decision to recognize the Caremark duty. Over the following twenty years, though, these histories sharply diverged. While amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines developed a robust account of director responsibilities, Delaware case law stalled, leaving Caremark's promise unfulfilled.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050646461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050646461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 90

SP - 647

EP - 680

JO - Temple Law Review

T2 - Temple Law Review

JF - Temple Law Review

SN - 0899-8086

IS - 4

ER -