kaal:claim:2317580-033

In re Pfizer stipulates that for a company that executed a CIA the court will allow an assumption that the directors were fully informed and therefore willing participants in the corporate malfeasance, so that the CIAs themselves became the court's proof that the directors could have breached their fiduciary duties.

Source quote, verbatim

The court stipulates that in the case of a company that executed a CIA, it will allow an assumption that the directors were fully informed, and thus, willing participants in the corporate malfeasance.

From

Wulf A. Kaal, Elizabeth R. Malay, The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties (2013), IV.2 Delineating the Role of CIAs in Fiduciary Duties, p. 17
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2317580 · source PDF

Cite as

Wulf A. Kaal, Elizabeth R. Malay, The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2317580

Holds when

In re Pfizer, 722 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
boards obligated by prior CIAs to monitor the very conduct alleged

Classification

mechanismsupport: evidencedcitation-and-knowledgecorporate-governancelaw-and-legal-systems

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 50973e1e820aef47a4e7ffdbdcb513d03f1845643fcf4fa5910e9528a0b7dac2. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/c5bf5f86110be160...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2317580-033.md | sha256sum