<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Court Imposes Caremark Fiduciary Duty on Corporate Officer</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 19:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy & Financial Distress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miller v. McDonald]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty?d=20150122113612EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Miller v. McDonald, et al., ( D. Del., Bankr., April 9, 2008), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware decided an issue of great importance to those who follow corporate governance issues related to the fiduciary duties of officers and directors. In this opinion on a motion to dismiss claims against an officer [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Francis G.X. Pileggi, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, on Thursday, May 8, 2008 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">This post is from Francis G.X. Pileggi of Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott, LLC. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In <em>Miller v. McDonald, et al.</em>, ( D. Del., Bankr., April 9, 2008), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware decided an issue of great importance to those who follow corporate governance issues related to the fiduciary duties of officers and directors. In this opinion on a motion to dismiss claims against an officer of a company, the Bankruptcy Court relied on decisions of the Delaware Chancery Court and the Delaware Supreme Court to deny a motion to dismiss in the course of ruling that <em>Caremark</em> duties would be imposed on an officer (who was not a director), that was on the management team when the President of the company committed fraud and other actions and omissions that ultimately led to the bankruptcy filing of the company. This is notable in part because there are not as many decisions that address the fiduciary duties of officers, as opposed to directors of a corporation.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.delawarelitigation.com/2008/03/articles/chancery-court-updates/chancery-imposes-same-fiduciary-duty-on-officers-as-directors/" target="_new">Here</a> is a summary of a Delaware Chancery Court decision of a few weeks ago that also imposed fiduciary duties on a corporate officer, (with a link to other similar cases and to a recent article on the topic by Professor Lyman Johnson).</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer/#more-488" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Court Imposes Caremark Fiduciary Duty on Corporate Officer">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2008/05/08/court-imposes-caremark-fiduciary-duty-on-corporate-officer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
