The Importance of Indemnifying Directors and Officers
Blame today's bad economy for the importance placed on protecting your board of directors.
September 30, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Everybody has his or her gripes. As an in-house lawyer, mine are document retention policies and indemnification of directors and officers. They make my head hurt–literally. I get headaches when dealing with either. So, I bravely risk pain to advise my in-house colleagues on why today's terrible economy is reason to study up on the intricacies of indemnifying your board of directors.
Times are tough for the non-profit sector, as a GuideStar survey recently confirmed. Forty percent of charities reported that contributions were way down this year, and 8 percent said they were in imminent danger of shutting their doors. The survey's best news seemed to be that most charities at least were able to maintain operations despite the economic downturn. This is the time non-profits need experienced, capable, diverse and wise leadership on their boards and in their management, but the disincentives to such people are piling up.
In recent years Congress has been paying close attention to non-profits in general, particularly in the area of corporate governance. The IRS, not unexpectedly, has followed that lead by stressing governance issues in audits and otherwise. Cash-starved state and local governments continue to be skeptical about all that tax-exempt property in their midst. And the citizen watchdog groups, not to mention the investigating journalists and attorneys general, are ever present and ready to jump on the misuse of government funds or charitable contributions.
In this environment, what experienced, substantial person would willingly take on the work, much less the serious legal duties, of charity board service? The charity's recruitment of talent will be easier if it can allay a prospective director's anxiety about personal liability with a clear statement about indemnification. Basically, that means the organization will defend or cover the costs (or both) of a director or officer who faces litigation as a direct result of service on behalf of the organization.
As a legal matter, indemnification is a many-layered thing and requires close attention by the in-house lawyer and the lawyers of the potential directors. State law determines whether your non-profit even has the right to offer indemnification (it probably does) and to whom, and your certificate of incorporation says whether your non-profit affirmatively took on the right. If the obligation to indemnify is found in the bylaws, you might want to strengthen the non-profit's commitment by amending the incorporation papers, which can't be changed nearly as easily as bylaws. A prospective director may be leery of a promise that can rescind a simple majority vote. Wherever the indemnification policy is lodged, it should cover administrative actions, including mediation and arbitrations, in addition to lawsuits. You're in luck if a prospective director is covered by her employer's liability insurance policy and if service on your non-profit board is at the request of her employer. It is even possible that the candidate's personal umbrella policy covers service on non-profit boards, and it probably does so at a low premium.
Many of the indemnification headaches (but not all) for the in-house lawyer can be dealt with in a good D&O (directors and officers) liability insurance policy. As with most insurance, the exclusions are critical, and D&O policies tend to exclude many very specific types of actions from coverage, such as Superfund issues, bodily injury claims and willful violation of a statute. Such a policy is more attractive if it is a “duty to defend” policy than if it is a mere “indemnity” policy. The former will make defense cost payments as they are incurred; the latter reimburses costs of defense after a decision is made. The former is more expensive, but the cost could be worthwhile as an incentive to board candidates and as a comfort to board incumbents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250