The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether an endorsement of a union president candidate by the nonprofit corporation that administers benefits for the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police was an improper use of public money and violated the group’s articles of incorporation and bylaws.
On Sept. 9, the justices granted allocatur in Zampogna v. Law Enforcement Health Benefits. The court’s one-page per curiam order said arguments will focus on whether courts failed to provide deference to the decisions of corporate directors, and whether a court can “usurp the role of corporate directors” simply by asserting, “without requiring any proof,” that a conflict of interest exists.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
