<?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/2016/01/15/failure-of-oversight-claims-against-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>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 11:30:45 +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>Failure-of-Oversight Claims Against Directors</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/15/failure-of-oversight-claims-against-directors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=failure-of-oversight-claims-against-directors</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/15/failure-of-oversight-claims-against-directors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Accounting & Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bernard Madoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caremark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter & bylaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Derivative suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Director liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of good faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liability standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oversight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=72334?d=20160115091623EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of purported shareholder derivative claims alleging that directors of JPMorgan Chase, a Delaware corporation, failed to institute internal controls sufficient to detect Bernard Madoff&#8217;s Ponzi scheme. Central Laborers v. Dimon, No. 14-4516 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2016) (summary order). The decision represents [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by John F. Savarese, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Friday, January 15, 2016 </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;"><a href="http://w3.wlrk.com/jfsavarese/" target="_blank">John F. Savarese</a> is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Savarese, <a href="http://w3.wlrk.com/EAKleinhaus/" target="_blank">Emil A. Kleinhaus</a>, <a href="http://w3.wlrk.com/clwilson/" target="_blank">C. Lee Wilson</a>, and <a href="http://w3.wlrk.com/noah-b-yavitz/" target="_blank">Noah B. Yavitz</a>. This post is part of the <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of purported shareholder derivative claims alleging that directors of JPMorgan Chase, a Delaware corporation, failed to institute internal controls sufficient to detect Bernard Madoff&#8217;s Ponzi scheme. <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/docs/CentralLaborers.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Central Laborers v. Dimon</em>, No. 14-4516 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2016) (summary order)</a>. The decision represents a forceful application of Delaware law holding that, when directors are protected by standard exculpation provisions in the corporate charter, they will not be liable for alleged oversight failures absent a particularized showing of bad-faith misconduct.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/15/failure-of-oversight-claims-against-directors/#more-72334" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Failure-of-Oversight Claims Against Directors">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/15/failure-of-oversight-claims-against-directors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
