Abstract:Over a decade has passed since landmark Delaware corporate law decisions on oversight responsibility, and only a small handful of cases have survived a motion to dismiss. Scholars have puzzled over what it means to have the potential for corporate accountability lodged within the duty of good faith, but almost never brought to fruition in terms of trial liability.This article explores the public-regarding purpose of the obedience and oversight duties in corporate law and provides a descriptive account of how they are applied in practice. The Article argues that the fidelity to external law required by the duty of good faith largely serves a legitimizing role for corporate law. Expressing obligations of legal compliance and oversight within corporate law acknowledges societal interests in the rule of law and preserves the ability of courts to flexibly respond to particularly salient and egregious violations of public trust, should they arise, without upending case law developed over decades.Further, this article examines the body of Delaware law concerning the oversight and obedience aspects of the duty of good faith and argues that they have become functionally linked. In practice to date, Delaware courts have prioritized giving directors broad latitude to take business risk by drawing a line at legal risk, despite the possibility that both types of activity could create social value or harm depending on the circumstances. Under current Delaware case law, courts have allowed Caremark claims to proceed where evidence exists to infer that the board utterly failed to implement a compliance monitoring system or that the directors engaged in disobedience by knowingly managing legal risk or flouting, violating, or ignoring the law. Bringing together these threads of discussion, this Article concludes that corporate law’s public-regarding commitment to the rule of law supports accountability in these instances of disobedience as well as more broadly when fiduciaries act with willful ignorance or an awareness that their efforts at compliance are insufficient.

Filling the Accountability Gap: Misleading Conduct Law in Business and Human Rights

Towards more sustainable global supply chains? Company compliance with new human rights and environmental due diligence laws

Big Profits, Big Harm? Exploring the Link Between Firm Financial Performance and Human Rights Misbehavior

Human Rights Conflicts and the Creation of Corporate Responsibility Collaborations

Promoting Corporate Extraterritorial Sustainable Responsibility through the Lens of Social Licence to Operate

Outsourcing the enforcement of modern slavery: Overcoming the limitations of a market-based disclosure model

Global production, CSR and human rights: the courts of public opinion and the social licence to operate

Exploring the Boundaries of Compensation for Misleading Conduct: The Role of Restitution under the Australian Consumer Law

A new milestone in corporate regulation: procedural legalisation, standards of transnational corporate behaviour and lessons from financial regulation and anti-bribery regulation

Corporate Responses to Tackling Modern Slavery: A Comparative Analysis of Australia, France and the United Kingdom

Foreign corporate accountability: The contested institutionalization of mandatory due diligence in France and Germany

Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business

Corporate social responsibility and accountability: a new theoretical foundation for regulating CSR

Corporate Oversight and Disobedience

Extracting transparency: the process of regulating disclosures for the resources industry

The UN Guiding Principles’ Orbit and Other Regulatory Regimes in the Business and Human Rights Universe: Managing the Interface

Institutional pressures and the accounting and reporting of environmental liabilities

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and the Internet: Lessons and Loopholes in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Should Specifically Deterrent or Punitive Remedies be made Available to Victims of Misleading Conduct under the Australian Consumer Law

Approaches to Combatting Modern Slavery in Supply Chains