Newsletters

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.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Most states recognize that corporate directors and upper-level officers owe the corporation the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. The duty to act in good faith has emerged in some jurisdictions as an equally important fiduciary duty imposed upon directors and officers. Historically, directors and officers were frequently exonerated of personal liability for business decisions because of courts' long-standing deference to the business decision under the business judgment rule or because the transaction was deemed fair to the corporation and its shareholders overall. In the wake of recent corporate scandals, however, officers and directors are under ever-increasing scrutiny by shareholders, the courts, state governments, and the federal government. Many corporate commentators bemoan the fact that conduct once protected under the business judgment rule may not be viewed with such deference in the future.

Securities Law> Exemptions From Registration> Exempted Transactions

(The Private Offering Exemption From SEC Registration Requirements)

Criminal Law & Procedure> Sentencing> Sentencing Guidelines Generally

Criminal Law

Duty of Obedience

Most jurisdictions recognize that directors have three basic fiduciary duties: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty of obedience. The duty of obedience requires a director to act in furtherance of the business organization's goals and mission as stated in the articles of incorporation and bylaws.