The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine - 1/19/2009

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright © 2001
Stanford Law School

2009 News and Press Releases

SEARCH

News	News 2009
HEADLINES \| SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS \| COURT FILINGS LINKS TO OTHER NEWS \| NEWS ARCHIVE	HEADLINES ARCHIVED SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS ARCHIVED

HEADLINE NEWS:

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine
Kevin LaCroix

The D & O Diary. January 19, 2009
_________________________________________________________________________

EXCERPT: In order to assign responsibility in connection with the enforcement of public welfare objectives, courts have developed the "responsible corporate officer doctrine," which in recent years has been applied with increasing frequency in environmental enforcement. A California appellate court recently applied the doctrine to enforce civil liability on the officers of a family run business. The case, and indeed the doctrine itself, raise important concerns about the potential liability of directors and officers. […] As the appellate court noted, the responsible corporate officer doctrine was developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1943 case of United States v. Dotterweich, to hold corporate officers in responsible positions of authority personally (and in that case, criminally) liable for violating strict liability statutes protecting the public welfare. Though the Dotterweich case involved a criminal proceeding, the California court in Roscoe applied the doctrine to uphold the imposition of civil liability. The Roscoe court described the doctrine as "a common law theory of liability separate from piercing the corporate veil or imposing personal liability of direct participation in tortious conduct." The appellate court in the Roscoe case held that the trial court properly applied the doctrine to the Roscoes because they had "overall authority," they "could have prevented or remedied promptly the problem," and because they did not "exercise their responsibilities and power to use all objectively possible means" to remedy the problem. Typically, the corporate veil doctrine would shield corporate officers or shareholders from direct personal liability for legal violations of the corporation, consistent with long-developed notions of the distinct and separate legal identity involved with the corporate form.

Back to News page | Back to Archived News 2009 page | Back to Top

�