Caremark's Irrelevance

Mercer E. Bullard
{"title":"Caremark's Irrelevance","authors":"Mercer E. Bullard","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2123649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Derivative Litig. is commonly held out as the iconic corporate law case on liability for a failure of legal compliance, but the true source of corporate law as to legal compliance is the higher standard established by other sources of law. The expected cost of liability, both criminal and civil, for violations of federal healthcare regulations, for example, is a far stronger determinant of corporate compliance systems than potential liability under Caremark. Other areas of industry-specific regulation, such as for financial services, telecommunications and energy, similarly play a greater role than state corporate law in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems, as do regulations in the form of federal sentencing guidelines and employment and environmental law. The common exaggeration of Caremark’s significance illustrates a flawed pedagogical overemphasis on state corporate law as a legal determinant of corporate compliance and a broader misconception about the influence of regulatory law in corporate affairs. This article shows that federal regulatory law is a far more determinative source of law than Caremark in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems. Part II of this article compares Caremark to the parallel federal criminal prosecution of the firm to illustrate the influence of federal law in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems. Part III further discusses the determinative role of healthcare regulation in corporate compliance systems and regulatory trends, and uses recent litigation involving Pfizer Inc. to further elucidate the role of healthcare regulation. Part IV broadens the discussion by considering the role of prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines in corporate compliance generally. Part V suggests that corporate law pedagogy would be well-served by reducing its focus on state corporate law and giving greater prominence to the actual legal determinants of corporate conduct. Part VII concludes.","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2123649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Derivative Litig. is commonly held out as the iconic corporate law case on liability for a failure of legal compliance, but the true source of corporate law as to legal compliance is the higher standard established by other sources of law. The expected cost of liability, both criminal and civil, for violations of federal healthcare regulations, for example, is a far stronger determinant of corporate compliance systems than potential liability under Caremark. Other areas of industry-specific regulation, such as for financial services, telecommunications and energy, similarly play a greater role than state corporate law in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems, as do regulations in the form of federal sentencing guidelines and employment and environmental law. The common exaggeration of Caremark’s significance illustrates a flawed pedagogical overemphasis on state corporate law as a legal determinant of corporate compliance and a broader misconception about the influence of regulatory law in corporate affairs. This article shows that federal regulatory law is a far more determinative source of law than Caremark in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems. Part II of this article compares Caremark to the parallel federal criminal prosecution of the firm to illustrate the influence of federal law in the design and operation of corporate compliance systems. Part III further discusses the determinative role of healthcare regulation in corporate compliance systems and regulatory trends, and uses recent litigation involving Pfizer Inc. to further elucidate the role of healthcare regulation. Part IV broadens the discussion by considering the role of prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines in corporate compliance generally. Part V suggests that corporate law pedagogy would be well-served by reducing its focus on state corporate law and giving greater prominence to the actual legal determinants of corporate conduct. Part VII concludes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药店连锁的无关紧要
Caremark国际有限公司Litig导数。它通常被认为是关于不遵守法律责任的标志性公司法案例,但公司法在遵守法律方面的真正渊源是其他法律渊源所确立的更高标准。例如,违反联邦医疗保健法规的预期责任成本(包括刑事和民事)比Caremark下的潜在责任更能决定企业的合规体系。其他特定行业的监管领域,如金融服务、电信和能源,在企业合规制度的设计和运作方面,同样比州公司法发挥更大的作用,联邦量刑指南、就业和环境法等形式的监管也是如此。对Caremark重要性的普遍夸大说明了一种有缺陷的教学方式,即过分强调州公司法是企业合规的法律决定因素,以及对监管法律在企业事务中的影响存在更广泛的误解。本文表明,在公司合规制度的设计和运作方面,联邦监管法是远比Caremark更具决定性的法律来源。本文的第二部分将Caremark与平行的联邦刑事起诉公司进行比较,以说明联邦法律在公司合规系统的设计和运作中的影响。第三部分进一步讨论了医疗监管在企业合规系统和监管趋势中的决定性作用,并使用最近涉及辉瑞公司的诉讼来进一步阐明医疗监管的作用。第四部分通过一般考虑起诉和量刑指南在公司合规中的作用来扩大讨论。第五部分认为,公司法教育学可以通过减少对州公司法的关注而更加突出公司行为的实际法律决定因素而得到很好的服务。第七部分结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Social Responsibility of Business Is Not Social Responsibility: Assume That There Are No Angels and Allow the Free Market's Touch of Heaven Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives Effectively Discharging Fiduciary Duties in IP-Rich M&A Transactions The Enigma of Hostile Takeovers in Japan: Bidder Beware National Security Review in Foreign Investments: A Comparative and Critical Assessment on China and U.S. Laws and Practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1