Il prof. Bainbridge segnala la sentenza Court of Chancery of Delaware 02.09.2025 del giudice Mc Cormick (nota alle cronache di diritto socetario per le importanti decisioni sul compenso di Musk in Tesla).
E’ la stessa giudice ad esordire con un perentorio “This is a Caremark1 case. The plaintiff alleges that former directors and officers of a pharmaceutical company failed to oversee regulatory risks in a manner that ultimately bankrupted the company“.
La domanda è respintga sui red flags (p. 21 ss), ma ha successo sulla failure nel duty of oversight.
E’ vero che <<“utterly” [chiesto dalla sentenza CAremark] —a “linguistically extreme formulation” intended “to set a high bar when articulating the standard to hold directors personally liable for a failure of oversight under the first Caremark prong.” This high bar gives boards a wide berth to exercise discretion with respect to business risk>>, p. 15
Ma è ancbe vero che il sistema di oversight doveva essere <<“reasonably designed to provide to senior management and to the board itself timely, accurate information sufficient to allow management and the board . . . to reach informed judgments concerning both the corporation’s compliance with law and its businesserformance.”. The Delaware Supreme Court clarified that a reasonably designed monitoring and reporting system, at a minimum, addresses “mission critical” risks>> (e nel caso ricorre quest’ultima caratteristica, chiesta in Caremark)
Le allegazioni di negligenza sono assai simili a Caremark , dice la Corte: <<Teligent pleads many of the same circumstances and information-systems deficiencies that were alleged in Marchand: It operated in a heavily regulatedindustry.62 It lacked a board committee responsible for overseeing any central compliance risk, or aspect of regulatory compliance.63 It lacked processes and protocols requiring management to keep the board apprised of central compliance risks, or any regulatory compliance risks.64 Plus it lacked training protocols designed to inform employees of central compliance risks.65 This is about as close to an utter failure as it gets>>.