<?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/2014/03/04/corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors/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>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:58:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Corporate “Free Exercise” and Fiduciary Duties of Directors</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/04/corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/04/corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of good faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of loyalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=60400?d=20141215165241EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Spring, the Supreme Court will decide whether a for-profit corporation can refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services mandated by the Affordable Healthcare Act (or “Obamacare”) when doing so would conflict with “the corporation’s” religious beliefs. Although the main legal issue in Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, March 4, 2014 </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;">The following post comes to us from Mark A. Underberg, retired partner of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison LLP, and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>This Spring, the Supreme Court will decide whether a for-profit corporation can refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services mandated by the Affordable Healthcare Act (or “Obamacare”) when doing so would conflict with “the corporation’s” religious beliefs. Although the main legal issue in <em>Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.</em> and <em>Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., et al. v. Sibelius</em> concerns the extent to which the guarantee of free exercise of religion under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may be asserted by for-profit corporations, the Court’s decision may also have important—and unsettling—implications for state corporate laws that define the fiduciary duties of boards of directors.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/04/corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors/#more-60400" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Corporate “Free Exercise” and Fiduciary Duties of Directors">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/04/corporate-free-exercise-and-fiduciary-duties-of-directors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
