Law Commons^™

Who Let You Into The House?, Lawrence Hamermesh

Lawrence A. Hamermesh

Recent Congressional corporate governance initiatives have reallocated to independent directors the functions of hiring and supervising the work of certain “gatekeepers,” and some have proposed such a reallocation with respect to general counsel, as a means to address cognitive biases and capture by senior management that may prevent inside counsel from identifying and preventing corporate misconduct. That proposal, however, does not sufficiently account for the positive effect on corporate conduct arising from a close relationship of trust and confidence between general counsel and the CEO or other senior managers. Eliminating such a relationship is likely to undermine access to internal …

Ancillary Joint Ventures And The Unanswered Questions After Revenue Ruling 2004-51

Gabriel O Aitsebaomo

Ever since the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") issued Revenue Ruling 98-15… in which it emphasized "control" as a critical factor in determining whether a tax-exempt hospital that enters into a whole-hospital joint venture with a for-profit entity would continue to maintain its tax-exemption, practitioners and scholars alike have sought guidance from the Service regarding whether such "control" would also be required of an exempt organization that enters into an "ancillary joint venture" with a for-profit entity. In response, the Service issued Revenue Ruling 2004-51 on May 6, 2004.

… In Revenue Ruling 2004-51, the Service enunciated that a tax-exempt …

Human Rights Compliance And Accountability For U.S. Multinational Enterprises: A Principled Step Forward After Sosa And Kiobel, Paul Regan

Paul L Regan

This article proposes a Congressional statutory solution to resolve when a multinational corporation can be liable under the Alien Tort Statute on a claim for human rights abuses arising from a corporation’s overseas business operations. Under this proposal a U.S. multinational would be directly liable for human rights violations of its overseas subsidiary where it (1) failed to ensure that its overseas subsidiary had in place a reasonably effective and functioning human rights compliance system or (2) acquired knowledge of ongoing human rights violations by its overseas subsidiary and failed to take meaningful corrective measures in a timely way.