Business Newsletters

Consumer Law
 
(Proper Disposal of Consumer Information)More...
 
General Partnership Basics
 
Partnerships are a traditional form for doing business. General partnerships are made up of two or more persons or entities, each of which takes part in and is responsible for the management of the partnership. Other partnerships and companies may be partners in a general partnership.More...
 
Fairness Standard and Business Judgment Rule
 
FAIRNESS STANDARD FOR DIRECTORSMore...
 
Interlocking Directorates
 
Section 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 19, prohibits corporations from having the same directors or officers in some instances. Thus, under Section 8, a person may not serve as an officer or director of two non-bank corporations if one of the companies has more than $10 million (adjusted for annual GDP changes) in capital, surplus, and undivided profits and the companies compete so that an agreement between them would eliminate that competition and result in a violation of an antitrust law. An example of a violation of an antitrust law which Section 8 of the Clayton Act is designed to prevent is an agreement between two or more competitors on the prices they charge, which would be a per se illegal agreement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.More...
 
Corporate Criminal Liability
 
Corporations were not initially held criminally responsible for corporate activities. A corporation was considered to be a legally fictitious entity, incapable of forming the mens rea necessary to commit a criminal act. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected this notion in 1909 in New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. U.S. A railroad company employee paid rebates to shippers in violation of federal law. The court upheld the corporation's criminal conviction, finding no reason that corporations could not be held "responsible for and charged with the knowledge and purposes of their agents, acting within the authority conferred upon them." The Supreme Court concluded that criminal liability could be imputed to the corporation based on the benefit it received as a result of the criminal acts of its agents. The case and its progeny have essentially imported the doctrine of respondeat superior from tort law into the corporate criminal realm. A corporation may be convicted for its agent's unlawful acts when the agent acted within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority. Another theory of corporate criminal liability is the "collective knowledge doctrine." As knowledge of criminal activity is often the scienter element of a particular crime, the requisite knowledge can be imputed to the corporation based on the collective knowledge of the directors and officers. More...
 

Click for Firm News Blog