August 09, 2005
Agency law
Posted by Account Deleted
There was an interesting little discussion of agency law in the Disney opinion. The question is whether the board should have gotten more involved in Ovitz’s termination. The court said it didn’t have to act at all – the CEO had the agency power to terminate Ovitz on his own, even without the board. See p. 165, n. 570.
This brings to mind the casebook chestnut, in my book and others, Lee v. Jenkins Bros, 268 F.2d 357 (2d Cir. 1959), which involved hiring of an executive rather than firing.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d83487796569e2
Links to weblogs that reference Agency law:
Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Follow The Glom on
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Miscellaneous Links
