Managing corporate reputations during and after major litigation
GCs' job now too demands an increased quotient of emotional intelligence of were going to make things better and weve learned a lot and were going to be better if theyre to contribute to the real mission at hand
January 26, 2014 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
GCs have much to learn by comparing two monumental global powers: BP and JPMorgan Chase.
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill had a defining impact in the sense that one can barely mention BP without the spill coming immediately to mind.
JPMorgan's mortgage debacle, a more recent event, had the bank's $13 billion settlement making headlines this past fall and numerous derivative government actions are just getting underway. JPMorgan is in danger of being defined as a result of the scandal. In both cases, we're talking about more than just a stain on the corporate escutcheon. We're talking about reputational damage that many observers argue might be permanent historic legacy, dwarfing what's been achieved in the past.
Yet, while their legacies face similar pigeonholes, the companies' responses, as of this writing, are studies in contrast.
BP cannot be indifferent to the economic impact, but the company realizes that reputation, a less tangible but nonetheless indispensable asset, must be managed in and of itself.
Indeed, the familiar “we're going to make it right” tagline now vies to define BP's culture, particularly since it follows a decade of successful marketing efforts. The message was powerfully underscored in June 2010 with the $20 billion Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust brokered by the White House. The trust became, with BP's endorsement, an integral part of the public narrative.
BP still faces the specter of litigation, but the trust was undeniably helpful air cover for the company. President Obama abetted BP's purpose by emphasizing that it would be an independently administered escrow trust. Message: BP wants to do the right thing even if it means ceding some control of the process.
It's all about redress of grievances and the compelling message of lessons learned. “We're going to learn a lot from this incident…We're going to learn a lot. The industry is going to learn a lot,” said BP chief executive Bob Dudley. “…there's no question that we will change as a company…We're going to emerge from it wiser…stronger.”
By contrast, JPMorgan seems to have geared its entire communications strategy to protecting short-term shareholder value and mitigating the torrential litigation ahead. As the message was carefully constructed to include no admission of wrongdoing, the bank was depicted as carefully dancing around its own liability so as to head off future claims.
The approach did work in terms of immediate stock value. “We didn't say that we acknowledge serious misrepresentation of the facts,” CFO Marianne Lake told analysts. “We would characterize potentially the statement of facts differently than others might.”
It's naïve to contend that such verbal gyrations aren't sometimes necessary when shareholder value hangs in the balance. Yet what's been missing from the financial services industry since the meltdown is a parallel communications track, not unlike BP's—and thereby hangs the tale for corporate GCs. Yes, the most assiduous strategy to avoid exposure should be implemented, but GCs must speak two languages in the cause of reputation management.
As Harvard professor Nancy Koehn said, “it's no longer enough for a leader to excel at one thing [emphasis added], even if it's improving profits.”
Among corporate officers, GCs are often the most guarded participants in corporate crises. Yet their job now too demands an increased quotient of emotional intelligence—of “we're going to make things better” and “we've learned a lot and we're going to be better”—if they're to contribute to the real mission at hand.
That mission involves a great deal more than simply staying out of court.
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 2General Warrants and ESI
- 3GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 4Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 5'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
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