This news report by Gretchen Morgenson, "Fair Game/The Eyeshade Smelled Trouble" p.1, col. 2 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "SundayBusiness" Section, Sunday, June 28, 2009), tells of a person who was never sued but instead was forced to incur attorney's fees and costs in fighting subpoenas for information he used in putting together a couple of reports about possible drawbacks of a cold remedy. The manufacturer of the cold remedy issued the subpoenas. The recipient was bankrupted or nearly so, in fighting the subpoenas.
His reports about possible drawbacks of the cold remedy were true.
A question concerning Fiduciary Duties arises from this report. This does not appear to have been the situation in the linked report, but it is a question which arises from it instead. Is it ever in the best interests of the shareholders of a publicly traded corporation, in which the Officers and Directors are recognized by the Courts to owe Fiduciary Duties to the shareholders, to demand subpoenaed production of documents or testimony from whistle-blowers or other corporate critics, after it is known or should be known that a point has been reached whereby the corporate critics are being silenced by causing them to incur unreimbursed expenses in defending their interests?
It also raises a question from the standpoint of the subpoenaed critics. Is it not abuse of process to be forced to incur expenses to defend your interests including by successfully contesting the subpoenas?
And, at what point will the Directors and Officers Liability Insurance not provide Coverage?
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments