Regulatory: Now is the right time to adopt an emergency succession plan
The board of directors plays a key role in establishing and overseeing the management succession planning process.
October 24, 2012 at 03:30 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The board of directors plays a key role in establishing and overseeing the management succession planning process. It continuously evaluates executive talent within the organization and searches for talent outside the organization when necessary. Institutional investors and activist shareholders have continued to focus considerable attention on the board's proper role in the management succession process, and as a result, public companies have increasingly established great rigor around their management succession plans. The key objective of any management succession planning efforts is to create a process that seeks to ensure continuity of management over the long term, while promoting smooth transitions when changes in management become necessary.
The need for an emergency succession plan
An element of succession planning that is sometimes overlooked is the need for a defined policy concerning emergency management succession. In recent years, the increased focus on health issues afflicting well-known executive officers of public companies, as well as high-profile resignations or terminations of executive officers due to conduct issues, has heightened the awareness of boards as to the need for emergency succession plans. The purpose of an emergency succession plan is to ensure that decisions about successor appointments are made well in advance of unplanned occurrences, such as the illness, death, resignation or termination of the CEO or other critical executive officers. The pre-ordained lines of succession set forth in an emergency succession plan can serve to avoid temporary (or even long-term) senior management vacancies that could negatively impact ongoing operations and undermine the confidence of investors.
Elements of an effective emergency succession plan
Today, the terms of emergency succession plans vary considerably across public companies. Some companies may only plan for succession of the CEO, and others seek to address emergency succession for all or a significant number of the executive officers.
It is advisable that boards implement emergency succession plans in conjunction with their companies' overall processes for managing executive succession. A committee of the board of directors typically oversees the emergency succession plan, usually the committee that is vested with oversight of the overall succession process, such as the compensation committee or nominating and corporate governance committee. The full board of directors is ultimately responsible for the appointment of any executive officers, including interim appointments under the emergency succession plan.
An emergency succession plan today should contemplate not only succession in the event of unexpected occurrences such as death, disability and resignation or removal under unexpected circumstances (e.g., in the event of gross misconduct, indictment or taking a position with another company), but also succession in the event of temporary, unplanned absences. The temporary, unplanned absence provision of the plan should address the interim appointment of a CEO or other executive officer when an individual expects to be out of the office on an extended but temporary basis, such as due to a treatable illness. It is typical that such absences be limited to those expected to last a specified period of time, which the committee establishing and overseeing the plan should determine.
Given the types of circumstances in which the emergency succession plan is to be implemented, it is recommended that the interim appointments by the board of directors occur within a specified period of time after the committee receives notice of the unexpected occurrence. The length of the period may depend on a company's circumstances, however, a two-day period may often be the most appropriate period when the emergency succession plan identifies the specific individuals and their lines of succession.
When establishing the process for making interim appointments, the emergency succession plan should also preserve the flexibility for the board of directors to make permanent appointments, in the possible event that the established lines of succession are consistent with the board's and the CEO's plans for long-term succession.
It is often advisable that two or three executive officers be designated as successors for a particular position, in order to address the potential that more than one executive officer could be subject to the unexpected occurrence at one time. This number should be adjusted to reflect the company's own judgments as to the depth necessary for succession of each specified position.
The emergency succession plan should establish that the board of directors, in consultation with the designated committee, is vested with authority to set the terms of any interim appointment under the plan, the scope of authority of the interim appointee and the compensation for the interim appointee. With regard to the scope of the interim appointee's authority, the committee may want to consider whether the interim appointee's authority should be limited so that he does not change the company's strategy or initiatives, unilaterally change financial policies or make significant management changes during the term of an interim appointment.
It is recommended that the emergency succession plan remain confidential, with access limited to the board of directors and a limited group of employees who have a need to know about the existence of the emergency succession plan. There is no requirement to publicly disclose the existence of an emergency succession plan or the contents of an emergency succession plan. A company should consider, however, whether it should provide some broad disclosure of its attention to emergency succession planning in its proxy statement and/or its corporate governance guidelines, given the particular attention to this issue among institutional investors.
It is suggested that boards review the emergency succession plan annually and at any time there is a change in management structure or in the individuals serving in management positions that impact the identified lines of succession.
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
© 2025 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 AllBig Tech Is Cozying Up to President Trump. Here's Why Their Lawyers Are Cautiously Optimistic
Starbucks Hands New CLO Hefty Raise, Says He Fosters 'Environment of Courage and Joy'
Internal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readMeta Workers Aren't of One Mind on Company's Retreat From DEI, Fact-Checking
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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