Considering joining a board? Read this first
Board service is like marriage: Its a great idea that can tragically turn into a nightmare if the wrong people are tied together for the wrong reasons.
December 31, 2013 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
Is it your New Year's resolution to focus (finally!) on joining a corporate board? After all, you are a seasoned in-house lawyer who has a ton of industry-relevant business experience. So it makes sense to get out there and network. If the stars align, an interesting board position will surface. Before accepting, take a moment to step back and ask some key questions. Board service is like marriage: It's a great idea that can tragically turn into a nightmare if the wrong people are tied together for the wrong reasons.
Before joining a board, you might consider three categories of questions: 1) management-board dynamics, 2) board processes, and 3) board protections.
When it comes to management-board dynamics, one key concern is the nature of the CEO's relationship to the board. Are the other board members all social friends of the CEO? Will you be the first truly independent board member to join? That's fine, but it can also be lonely and difficult. Does the board have a lot of confidence in management or is CEO-succession planning about to become an urgent priority? Finally, is there alignment between management's view and the board's view of the company culture, especially concerning ethical behavior? Understanding the frequency and outcome of whistleblower-type complaints can be a way to unpack this tricky issue. The same can be said for understanding management's view of the board's role when it comes to enterprise risk management, including what type of information is given to the board to support this role.
Board processes might seem straightforward, and they can be. On the other hand, woe be to the newbie board member who is the only person that realizes the way a particular board is operating falls far outside of normal practices. Even when a board agrees that governance is important, nothing will sideline a new board member faster than appearing to be overly concerned with processes at the expense of the business. Exploring the reasons for the current size of the board and set of skills represented on the board can be illuminating. Also, one of the most important responsibilities a board has is its own succession. Is your ascension to the board part of a master plan, or is the board adding members in an entirely opportunistic fashion? The latter can be just fine, although it might not be the best way to ensure that the board has the full set of skills it needs to be as effective as possible.
Finally, before agreeing to join the board, it's worth researching what board protections are in place. For example, has the company included exculpatory provisions for monetary liability in its charter where possible? Has it considered choice of forum provisions in its bylaws (or charter)? Also, what indemnification arrangements have been put in place? A company that is not offering a state-of-the-art personal indemnification agreement contract to all independent board members is a company that may be behind the times in other ways as well.
In addition, it's a good idea to ask about the company's D&O insurance program. There are circumstances in which even the most highly capitalized company cannot indemnify a director (ex. the settlement of derivative suits), and the only thing standing between a director and personal liability is a robust D&O insurance program.
On the other hand, an excessively large D&O insurance program may also be cause for concern. For example, an overly large insurance program can be a consequence of management's and the board's uneasiness about a specific, particularly difficult set of issues. If so, you'll want to understand these issues before you join the board.
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 All3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
Ten Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 2Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 3HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 4'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 5Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
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