Il tribunale del Delaware ha emsso sentenza 26.01.2023 , C.A. No. 2021-0324-JTL, nel caso IN RE McDONALD’S CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION.
In breve Fairhurst, capo del personale di McDonal’s, non avrebbe promosso azioni per contrastare l’harassment di personale femminile; anzi lui stesso si sarebbe reso colpevole di condotte improprie. Alcuni soci agirono nei suoi confronti per danno alla società
Da noi l’art. 2392 cc regola la responsabilità plurisogettiva. Nel caso specifico, presupponendosi l’organizzaizone di monitoraggi adeguati sul rischio di violazioni di harassmdent, va tenuto conto pure del riparto di competenze tra esecutivi e board posto dall’art. 2381 cc
Dalla sentenza: <<The board’s need for information leads ineluctably to an imperative for officers to generate and provide that information ….. For relevant and timely information to reach the board, the officers who serve as the day-to-day managers of the entity must make a good faith effort to ensure that information systems are in place so that the officers receive relevant and timely information that they can provide to the directors. Think Strategically, supra, at 488. It follows that officers must have a duty to make a good faith effort to establish an information system as a predicate to fulfilling their obligation to provide information to the board. Id. at 488–89>>.
E subito dopo: <<A related point is that officers must make decisions in their own right. . >>, p. 24.
Quindi: <<A third reason that Chancellor Allen provided for recognizing the board’s duty ofoversight was the importance of having compliance systems in place so the corporation could receive credit under the federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 970>, § 25.
<<The dimension of the oversight duty that supports the Red-Flags Claim also applies to officers>>, p. 26. T
<<For similar reasons, officers generally only will be responsible for addressing or reporting red flags within their areas of responsibility, although one can imagine possible exceptions. If a red flag is sufficiently prominent, for example, then any officer might have a duty to report upward about it. An officer who receives credible information indicating that the corporation is violating the law cannot turn a blind eye and dismiss the issue as “not in my area.” >>, p. 42.
<<The arguments about the oversight regime that should apply to officers parallel the arguments about whether an officer’s duty of care should resemble the director regime and require a showing of gross negligence, or whether it should track the agency regime and require only simple negligence. Scholars engaged in extensive debate on that topic>>, p. 46.
Molto interessant, infine, l’elenco delle red flags con relative risposte, pp. 55-60