corporate governance case study with solution

Corporate Governance Case Study: Tesla, Twitter, and the Good Weed

Justin Slane, Sharon Makower and Joe Green are editors for the Capital Markets & Corporate Governance Service at Thomson Reuters Practical Law. This post is based on a Practical Law article by Mr. Slane, Ms. Makower and Mr. Green.

Perhaps no company in the world has the perception of its brand being tied to one person more than Tesla Inc. (Tesla) and its CEO and now former chairman of the board, Elon Musk. As at least one journalist phrased it, “ Elon Musk is Tesla. Tesla is Elon Musk .” And Musk is not just the face of Tesla, but a co-founder of PayPal and Solar City, the founder and current CEO of SpaceX and founder of its subsidiary, The Boring Company. He has crafted a “real-life Iron Man” persona, including all the eccentricity, and is undoubtedly one of the most recognizable and polarizing CEOs in the world.

But 2018 has not been the best year for Elon Musk. In what Musk would call negative propaganda pushed by short sellers, Tesla has faced heightened scrutiny and increasingly negative media attention related to a litany of issues, including cash burn , vehicle safety , production capabilities , and a string of employment-related lawsuits and executive exits ( only made worse recently ). Analysts and investors began to publicly cool on Tesla and question its long-term value, which Musk also attributed to short sellers .

In May, citing independence concerns and questioning whether Musk may be stretched too thin, proxy advisory giants Glass, Lewis & Company (Glass Lewis) and Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) opposed the re-election of current Tesla board members and supported splitting Musk’s roles as CEO and chairman.

As the pressure mounted, Musk became increasingly combative, especially on Twitter, lashing out at short sellers and anyone criticizing Tesla or him. Musk’s erratic behavior and obsession with short sellers and critics drew more criticism of his leadership and that of Tesla’s board of directors .

But it all came to a head on August 7, when in the middle of the trading day, without notice or warning to anyone (including other executives and directors at Tesla or contacts at Nasdaq, the exchange on which Tesla’s common stock is listed), Musk tweeted:

Then, for reasons still unknown, nobody took his phone away, and Musk continued tweeting and interacting with shareholders throughout the day:

The public reaction to Musk’s tweets was strong and immediate. Tesla’s stock soared before Nasdaq eventually halted trading for several hours later in the day, and there was instant speculation about whether Musk actually had the funding to take Tesla private (spoiler: he did not).

Musk’s drastic departure from normal public disclosure standards and the subsequent media circus arising from it unsurprisingly captured the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which ultimately resulted in an enforcement action and settlement with Elon Musk over the tweets. Tesla also settled with the SEC. The end results of the settlements include the following:

• Musk must step down as chairman of the board and be replaced by an independent chairman, but Musk will be allowed to remain as CEO. On November 7, 2018, Tesla appointed an independent chairman.
• Musk and Tesla must each pay $20 million in fines.
• Tesla must add two independent directors and create a formal disclosure committee to oversee communications from Musk.
• Tesla must hire an experienced securities lawyer, subject to approval by the SEC Division of Enforcement (Tesla’s current general counsel was Elon Musk’s divorce attorney and worked primarily in family law before joining Tesla).

This post examines this corporate governance cautionary tale, focusing primarily on the Regulation FD (Reg FD) issues raised by Musk’s tweets and public statements. The full article from which this post is excerpted also examines a host of other issues including disclosure controls and procedures, stock exchange requirements, conflicts of interest, board independence, and more, highlighting for each issue where things went wrong and identifying resources that perhaps could have helped avoid this type of mess. To learn more about these issues, the full article can be accessed here .

Complying with Regulation FD

Much of the initial reporting surrounding Musk’s tweets questioned whether the use of his personal Twitter account violated Reg FD. Reg FD, which took effect in 2000, prohibits selective disclosure by requiring that material nonpublic information disclosed to securityholders or market professionals (including research analysts) must also be disclosed to the public in a broad, non-exclusionary manner. And in fact, in finally answering why he tweeted about taking Tesla private, Musk explained in an August 13 blog post that he wanted to have discussions with key shareholders and he felt it “wouldn’t be right to share information about going private with just [Tesla’s] largest investors.” While Musk’s intentions are noble and in line with the basic principle of nearly 20-year-old federal securities law, the reports were correct that Reg FD generally requires more than tweets.

SEC guidance issued in 2008 and 2013 regarding the use of company websites and social media for disclosure suggests that companies can still satisfy Reg FD requirements if they notify investors of where they can expect material information to be disclosed online, making it a “recognized channel of distribution.” In particular, the 2013 guidance dealt with the Netflix CEO disclosing monthly viewing hours on his personal Facebook page.

The SEC stated that disclosing material nonpublic information on the personal social media site of an individual corporate officer, without advance notice to investors that the site may be used for this purpose, is unlikely to satisfy Regulation FD because it is not likely a method “reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public” that Reg FD requires. The SEC stated this is true even if “the individual in question has a large number of subscribers, friends or other social media contacts, so that the information is likely to reach a broader audience over time.”

The SEC used its 2013 guidance to highlight the concept that whether a Regulation FD violation occurred will turn on whether the investing public was alerted to the channels of distribution a company will use to disseminate material information. The SEC’s 2008 guidance on the use of company websites outlines the factors that indicate whether a particular channel (whether it be a corporate website or a corporate executive’s social media account) is a recognized channel of distribution for communicating with investors.

In this case, Tesla and Musk had a few factors in their favor:

• A Form 8-K filed on November 5, 2013 , encourages investors to follow Elon Musk’s personal Twitter account for material information being disclosed to the public. Ideally the notice would be repeated, including in Tesla’s annual reports on Form 10-K or additional Form 8-K reports, but at least some form of notice was provided to shareholders.
• Elon Musk also has nearly 23 million Twitter followers. His original tweet was widely picked up and further broadcast by major news sources within minutes, and within hours, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt was on major cable news networks discussing whether Musk committed securities fraud.

While it was far from a safe use of social media for Reg FD purposes, Musk and Tesla appear to have a decent argument that shareholders had notice that information could be disclosed through Musk’s personal Twitter account and his account was reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary disclosure of the information.

Most public companies typically adopt formal policies regarding compliance with Reg FD (as well as the use of social media by their employees and executives). A strong Reg FD policy should contain:

• A complete outline of the procedures and practices of the company concerning disclosure of information to the public.
• A formal limitation on which company personnel are permitted to communicate with analysts and securityholders on behalf of the company. These people should be well-versed in Reg FD and familiar with the company’s public disclosures. Ideally these people should also understand the concept of materiality and what may constitute securities fraud under Rule 10b-5.
• A restatement of the company’s policy on confidentiality of information.
• A guide to disclosing material information.

Companies should also address the use of social media by their employees and executives, whether in their Reg FD policies or in separate social media guidelines that cover both personal social media use and social media use as an authorized company spokesperson.

While a Tesla Reg FD policy, set of social media guidelines, or other corporate communications policy addressing these concerns does not seem to be publicly available, the Tesla Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (last revised in December 2017) refers to a “Communication Policy … [that covers] Tesla’s social media guidelines, media relations and marketing guidelines, and the circumstances and the extent to which individuals are allowed to speak on Tesla’s behalf.” Musk should have been aware of Tesla’s communications policy, ideally having been reminded frequently through regular training for Tesla officers regarding the company’s policy and their obligations under Regulation FD, and never tweeted to begin with.

Twitter Was Always a Bad Choice

Musk’s tweets are also an extreme, yet useful, example of why casual social media use and disclosure of material nonpublic information should not be mixed. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act prohibits material misstatements and omissions of fact, and companies must always avoid making disclosures in informal social media posts that lack material information or the context necessary for investors to be fully informed. If a company decides that there is material information that should be disclosed to the public, it must then determine when that information must be disclosed. Information should only be disclosed when it is definitive, accurate, clear, and specific.

Twitter can be an excellent tool for supplementing more formal corporate disclosure, such as linking to SEC filings, the company’s website, or attaching a press release as an image. However, individual Twitter posts as the sole medium of disclosure might be the worst form of social media use for disclosing material nonpublic information. The primary differentiating factor between Twitter and other social media platforms is it limits user posts to just 280 characters. Musk used 61 characters in his original going private tweet (if you pro rate his $20 million SEC fine to the characters in that tweet, Musk spent over $2.6 million on spaces alone). While some may applaud his succinctness, Musk’s August 7 tweets and blog post are textbook examples of public disclosures that lack context and completeness.

What does “funding secured” and “investor support is confirmed” mean? Who is/are the buyer(s)? How was the $420 per share price calculated? Has the board received or approved a proposal? None of these basic questions had answers. We later learned in the SEC’s civil complaint against Musk:

• A Tesla investor texted Musk’s chief of staff “What’s Elon’s tweet about? Can’t make any sense of it….”
• A reporter emailed Musk to ask if his tweet was a 420 joke and whether “an actual explanation” was coming.
• The following investor relations exchange happened in real life seven hours, ten tweets, and one blog post after Musk’s initial “going private” tweet:

“After Tesla’s head of Investor Relations received another inquiry from another investment bank research analyst at approximately 7:20 PM EDT, he asked whether the analyst had read Tesla’s ‘official blog post on this topic.’ The analyst responded, ‘I did. Nothing on funding though?’ The head of Investor Relations replied, ‘The very first tweet simply mentioned ‘Funding secured’ which means there is a firm offer. Elon did not disclose details of who the buyer is.’ The analyst then asked, ‘Firm offer means there is a commitment letter or is this a verbal agreement?’ The head of Investor Relations responded, ‘I actually don’t know, but I would assume that given we went full-on public with this, the offer is as firm as it gets.'” (see SEC Complaint, par. 52 .)

It took six full days before Musk or Tesla provided any clarification about what Musk meant by “funding secured” and the rest of his going private tweets on August 7.

Corporate Disclosure or Personal Statements?

Musk’s claim he was making statements in his personal capacity as a potential buyer of Tesla as opposed to on Tesla’s behalf as CEO and Chairman adds another element to this case illustrating why disclosure of material nonpublic information requires full context. If his personal Twitter account is both a recognized channel for corporate communications and a means for him to make disclosures as a private individual, how are investors supposed to know what is corporate information and what is personal?

Nothing in the August 7 tweets or blog post definitively stated Musk was not speaking on behalf of Tesla as its CEO and Chairman. In fact, in the investor relations exchange mentioned above, Tesla’s head of Investor Relations says “… I would assume that given we went full-on public with this…” (emphasis added), phrasing that certainly implies he thought the statements were made on Tesla’s behalf.

It is generally good corporate governance practice that if a company discovers a Reg FD violation, to minimize risks, it should promptly disclose the information by a Reg FD-compliant method. For example, if an executive officer selectively discloses material nonpublic information, the company can correct the situation by filing a Form 8-K to disclose the information.

Given the potential confusion for investors resulting from Musk’s initial tweets and his claim that he made the statements in his “personal capacity,” Tesla should have immediately filed a Form 8-K (which also happens to allow for more than 280 characters) to correct any potentially selective or misleading disclosure made by Musk and provide any additional context necessary. No Form 8-K was filed though. Again, it was six days before Musk or Tesla provided any clarification or additional explanation for his statements on August 7.

The SEC Settlement and Ongoing Fallout

The ultimate fallout from Musk’s brief foray into a possible going private transaction is still ongoing:

• Class action lawsuits are still pending.
• The Department of Justice is still investigating Musk’s tweets.
• Significant investors are engaging with Tesla requesting changes to the board of directors (and other corporate governance practices).

Musk doesn’t seem to be fazed by any of this, and could do something tomorrow that turns this all on its head again. But the SEC settlement with Musk has now been approved by the Southern District of New York, and Tesla has settled separately with the SEC without a formal enforcement action. The terms of the settlements bring us full circle to where the year started, with the recognition that Tesla was facing an increasing battle between responsible corporate governance and Elon Musk’s persona. Tesla lost this round. If the added disclosure controls and expanded board continues losing battles, well, who knows? There is always Teslaquilla (or maybe not )!

Supported By:

Subscribe or Follow

Program on corporate governance advisory board.

• William Ackman
• Peter Atkins
• Kerry E. Berchem
• Richard Brand
• Daniel Burch
• Arthur B. Crozier
• Renata J. Ferrari
• John Finley
• Carolyn Frantz
• Andrew Freedman
• Byron Georgiou
• Joseph Hall
• Jason M. Halper
• David Millstone
• Theodore Mirvis
• Erika Moore
• Morton Pierce
• Philip Richter
• Elina Tetelbaum
• Marc Trevino
• Steven J. Williams
• Daniel Wolf

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows

• Lucian Bebchuk
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Stephen M. Davis
• Allen Ferrell
• Jesse Fried
• Oliver Hart
• Howell Jackson
• Kobi Kastiel
• Reinier Kraakman
• Mark Ramseyer
• Robert Sitkoff
• Holger Spamann
• Leo E. Strine, Jr.
• Guhan Subramanian
• Roberto Tallarita

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab
• Faculty Recruiting
• See All Jobs

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Subscribe to Corporate Governance Emails

CGRI Case Studies

Case studies by Stanford GSB faculty that illustrate concepts and lessons in corporate governance.

Keller Williams Realty (B)

This case is a follow up to HR-29A, and explains the actions taken by Keller Williams in response to the residential real estate market downturn in 2008 and 2009. The case explains the programs and initiatives put in place by the company to boost agent…

Sharks in the Water, Battling an Activist Investor for Corporate Control (B)

This case is a follow up to CG-20A, and explains the actions taken by Tarco in response to threat from activist investor Barracuda. The case explains how the company relied on an analysis of its shareholder base and predictive proxy voting to inform its…

Baker Hughes, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

In 2002, Baker Hughes was accused of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). This case describes the actions taken by the company in response to those accusations. These include hiring a third-party law firm to undertake an independent…

Equity on Demand, the Netflix Approach to Compensation

Netflix was among a small group of Silicon Valley companies to emerge from the technology bubble of the late 1990s a clear winner in terms of growth, market share, and profitability. That Netflix was able not only to prevail over this competition but also…

Sharks in the Water, Battling an Activist Investor for Corporate Control (A)

In July 2006, Barracuda became the largest investor in Tarco International. In a meeting with management, Barracuda’s managing director advised that strong measures needed to be taken to improve operating performance. If management failed, Barracuda would…

Multimillionaire Matchmaker, An Inside Look At CEO Succession Planning

This case takes an inside look at CEO succession planning at Energy Corp. The case provides an overview of various models of succession planning, including external search, COO appointment, a horse race, and the inside-outside model. The case then…

Royal Dutch/Shell, A Shell Game with Oil Reserves (A)

In January 2004, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies announced that it would reduce its estimate of proved oil reserves by nearly 4 billion barrels, or 20 percent. The announcement set off a series of events, including a drop in the company’s share…

Royal Dutch/Shell, A Shell Game with Oil Reserves - Governance Overhaul After Scandal (B)

Following the revelation that the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies had overstated its proved oil reserves by over 4 billion barrels, company officials announced dramatic changes to the company’s organizational structure and governance system. These…

Financial Restatements: Methods Companies Use to Distort Financial Performance

Over the last 10 years, the number of publicly traded companies that have had to restate financial results has risen dramatically. Regardless of whether the restatements stemmed from the aggressive application of accounting standards or the need to…

Models of Corporate Governance. Who's the Fairest of Them All?

In 2007, corporate governance became a well-discussed topic in the business press. Newspapers produced detailed accounts of corporate fraud, accounting scandals, excessive compensation, and other perceived organizational failures—many of which culminated…

Attention Shoppers, Executive Compensation at Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods

Retail grocery sales represent a significant portion of the U.S. economy. The industry was highly competitive, with companies operating on low gross and net margins. As a result, grocery stores were generally under significant pressure to reduce their…

Corporate Governance Ratings, Got the grade… What was the test?

In 2007, there were three prominent corporate governance ratings firms—The Corporate Library (TCL), Governance Metrics International (GMI), and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). These firms assessed the effectiveness and deficiency of the…

Shareholder Democracy, Does Gretchen Get It Right?

By 2007, Gretchen Morgenson, assistant editor and columnist at The New York Times, had gained significant attention from business leaders, regulators, and academics for her coverage of a wide range of financial and governance issues. Morgenson wrote the…

The Walt Disney Company: Investor Communications Strategy

As the chief financial officer of The Walt Disney Company, Tom Staggs was responsible not only for the financial management of the company, but also for the communication of the company’s financial and strategic objectives to its investor base. Because of…

Sovereign Bancorp and Relational Investors, The Role of the Activist Hedge Fund

10b5-1 plans, mortgaging a defense against insider trading.

In 2006, David Zucker, chief executive officer of Midway Games, came under fire for selling a significant amount of Midway stock just weeks before a precipitous decline in the company’s share price. One year later, Angelo Mozilo, chairman and chief…

Earnings Conference Calls, Hewlett-Packard Company

The case study asks students to evaluate the role that the quarterly conference call plays in a company’s overall communications strategy with investors. In particular, students are asked to assess what additional information they can learn from the…

The Coca-Cola Company: Accounting for Investments in Bottlers

In 2001, accounting regulators, especially those in the U.S., began to reconsider the rules of consolidation with a move toward a requirement based on “control,” with much less consideration of the size of the equity stake. The fundamental accounting and…

Keller Williams Realty (A)

The case describes the economic and cultural models that have led to the success of Keller Williams Realty. By 2006 Keller Williams was one of the most profitable real estate companies in the United States (if not the most profitable); in addition it was…

AMB Property Corporation, Financial Reporting in the REIT Industry

AMB Property Corporation set out to be a leader in corporate governance and financial reporting. The company, a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT) that acquires, develops, and owns industrial properties, believed that its governance and…

AOL Time Warner (A): Accounting for Goodwill

This case asks students to review the impact of SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, in the context of the AOL Time Warner merger. Under SFAS 142, companies were required to perform periodic testing to determine whether economic goodwill had…

Executive Compensation at Nabors Industries, Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right?

Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries, was listed in a 2006 Wall Street Journal article as one of the highest paid executives in the U.S. over the previous 14 years. He received this compensation as a result of a unique bonus arrangement and large…

AOL Time Warner (B): Recognition of Goodwill Impairment

This case reviews the recognition of goodwill impairment taken by AOL Time Warner following the adoption of SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. This case is the successor of A-196A, AOL Time Warner (A): Accounting for Goodwill.

Halliburton Company, Accounting for Cost Overruns and Recoveries

In July 2002, a legal watchdog group, Judicial Watch, announced that it was suing Halliburton Company for overstating revenues during the period 1998 to 2001. The group’s contention was that Halliburton used fraudulent accounting practices to boost…

• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Annual Alumni Dinner
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Career Support and Resources
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Program Contacts
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

New Living Cases on Corporate Governance

• Open Access
• © 2021

You have full access to this open access Textbook

• Martin Hilb 0

International Board Foundation and its International Center for Corporate Governance, St. Gallen, Switzerland

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Offers unique living cases from a diverse set of businesses and countries
• Presents the landscape of corporate governance across several sectors, regions and functions (such as Auditing, HR Governance, Opportunity & Risk Oversight, M&A Governance, etc.)
• Demonstrates the use of living cases for corporate and classroom training

Part of the book series: Management for Professionals (MANAGPROF)

54k Accesses

3 Citations

5 Altmetric

Buy print copy

• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

About this book

This unique open access book features a selection of Living Cases on Corporate Governance, which were developed and compiled by chairpersons, members of the board of directors, and CEOs in various countries, working in close collaboration with prominent researchers. Each Living Case addresses a current issue that a given company or institution needs to resolve.

Similar content being viewed by others

When the Solution Becomes the Problem: The Triple Failure of Corporate Governance Codes

Introduction

• The role of board of directors
• Case studies on corporate governance
• St. Gallen living cases
• Board management collaboration
• HR governance
• IPO governance
• Fraud governance and compliance

Table of contents (18 chapters)

Front matter, the board of directors as a change agent, family company governance case.

Martin Hilb

University Governance Case

• Tudor Maxwell, Stefano Bianchini

Start-Up Investor Governance Case

• Robert M. LoBue

NPO Governance Case

• J. Augusto Felício, Ricardo Rodrigues

The Board of Directors as a Direction Body

M&a governance case, family company direction case.

• Christoph Maier

University Direction Case

• Mehtap Aldogan Eklund

Board of Directors as a Strategic Sparring Partner

• Roman Lombriser

The Board of Directors as an HR Governance Body

Reward governance case, succession planning governance case, owner–ceo collaboration case.

• Elena Szederjei

Board–Management Collaboration Case

• Harry Korine

Governance of Gender Diversity Case

• Beatrix Dart

A Case of Responsible Restructuring as Good Governance

• Victoria Maier

The Board of Directors as a Controlling Body

Subsidiary governance case, editors and affiliations, about the editor.

Professor Martin Hilb is Executive Chairman of the Board Foundation and its International Center for Corporate Governance (Switzerland), President of the Swiss Institute of Directors and Chair of the Policy Committee of the Global Network of Director Institutes. 

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : New Living Cases on Corporate Governance

Editors : Martin Hilb

Series Title : Management for Professionals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48606-8

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Business and Management , Business and Management (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-48605-1 Published: 27 January 2021

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-48608-2 Published: 27 January 2022

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-48606-8 Published: 26 January 2021

Series ISSN : 2192-8096

Series E-ISSN : 2192-810X

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVIII, 105

Topics : Corporate Governance , Business Strategy/Leadership , International Business

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Disclosures
• Insights & Reports

Owned by 186 member countries and consistently rated AAA/Aaa. IFC aims to achieve our mission of promoting development by providing debt and equity to the private sector, through a range of benchmark and bespoke products.

• Governments
• Investor Relations
• Green Bonds
• Social Bonds
• Apply for Financing
• IFC Careers
• General Inquiries

Case Studies of Good Corporate Governance

This second fully revised edition of "Case Studies of Good Corporate Governance Practices" presents the experiences of a set of leading companies in Latin America in reforming and improving how their firms are governed, and the results these changes have achieved. Each chapter's contents reflect the views of one company's management and directors of the motivations, challenges, solutions and rewards for devising and putting in place better governance rules and practices.

The full publication download also includes the case studies translated into Spanish and Portuguese.  

DOWNLOAD PDF