Home      Login

Caremark Claims: “Mission Critical” Compliance Risks and a Board’s Duty to Monitor  

Author:  Maeve  O’Connor.; Elliot Greenfield.; Tristan M. Ellis.

Source: Volume 53, Number 04, February 15 2020 , pp.37-41(5)

Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation

next article > |return to table of contents


In two recent cases the Delaware courts have allowed Caremark claims to proceed, raising the question whether the courts are lowering the high pleading bar to such cases. The authors discuss the cases, finding that extreme facts rather than lowering requirements are responsible for the decisions. Their takeaways include three central points that bear on whether a Caremark claim will survive a motion to dismiss; and they conclude that corporate boards should identify “mission critical” compliance risks and have─and use─mechanisms for monitoring those risks.

Keywords: Marchand v. Barnhill; In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litig; Pleading a Caremark Claim

Affiliations:  1: Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; 2: Debevoise; 3: Debevoise.

Subscribers click here to open full text in PDF.
Non-subscribers click here to purchase this article. $59

next article > |return to table of contents