Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2020: Corporate Reputation

Feb 20, 2020

Reading Time : 4 min

The thing that attracted the largest collection of subscribers—and so drew advertising dollars—was editorial integrity. People understood that when their news came from a major newspaper, news magazine or broadcast network, they were getting the product of sophisticated reporting, experienced editors and a publisher with a reputation to protect. While a tabloid with screaming headlines about UFO landings in Nevada might be found at a supermarket newsstand next to The New York Times, everyone knew the difference. One was about inexpensive entertainment and the other was about hard, fact-checked news and editorial content. The broadcast world followed the same rules. The evening network news broadcast was a mainstay of popular American journalism. The late night FM radio talk show was where the conspiracy theorists prowled the airwaves.

News about business was no different than any other kind of print or broadcast journalism. When an investigative piece in a major newspaper or a television documentary exposed dangerous products, consumer rip-offs or corporate corruption, readers and viewers understood that they were getting the news. False claims rarely made it through the filter of skilled professional reporters and editors and onto the newswires or airwaves.

The Internet has changed everything. What once required automated printing presses and broadcast towers—conveying news and information to a large audience—can be done on a computer or even a smartphone. A recent study by the Pew Research Group reported that 45 percent of Americans get their news from a single social media platform. The sinister manipulation of social media is now viewed as a serious threat to democratic institutions and is at the center of public policy debates.

The capacity of businesses to protect their reputation has not been spared. False attacks on the products and brands, leadership, securities, markets and overall integrity of major corporations can now originate on an obscure electronic bulletin board—and be “trending” on social media in a matter of hours. From there, Internet news providers, with none of the checks and filters of the mainstream media, can give an online media assault legitimacy that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. False attacks on corporate reputation may originate with commercial competitors, political activists, protectionist foreign governments or just someone with an axe to grind.

The law provides some tools that can be used to deflect an organized attack on reputation, but there are some important steps that should first be taken to understand and respond to the threat.

  • Monitor the electronic marketplace. Knowing what is being written and said about your company is a simple task and worth the effort. Orchestrated online attacks may start as public electronic bulletin board entries or Tweets from obscure accounts.

Dealing with false allegations before they expand into a broader forum and threaten real harm requires a high level of vigilance—and an appreciation of the fact that the Internet never sleeps.

  • Know the facts. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the legal doctrines that flow from it protect the truth and provide broad bounds for editorial opinion. Sometimes allegations that begin to circulate online are offensive, unsavory and seem fundamentally unfair, but are basically true. In these circumstances, trying to fight the facts will rarely lead to a happy and satisfactory result. When the facts are bad, go to work on fixing the underlying problem and make no secret of what you are doing.
  • Understand when a threat is real. The kind of damage that can flow from an organized reputational attack is a serious matter. Equally important, however, is the long-term harm that can result from treating every unhappy murmur on the Internet as a potential four-alarm fire. Knowing the difference— and separating online rumbles that signal a real and documented threat from adverse stray chatter—is a skill that anyone charged with protecting corporate reputation should work to refine.
  • Choose your targets. “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” When Bob Dylan wrote those lyrics in 1965, he could have been describing many of the Internet goblins of the 21st century. Sources of false accusations, dressed up as Internet news, frequently originate in a basement bedroom of a parent’s house or a table in a coffee shop. A letter from a large law or crisis management firm, instead of conveying a clear and appropriate warning, may instead suggest that the purveyor of the untrue tales of corporate misconduct has reached the big leagues. A good question to ask before pushing the “send” button on a typical “cease and desist” letter: If this letter is published online and even finds its way into the mainstream press, will we have done more good or more harm to the goal of protecting our reputation?
  • Act when necessary – and play to win. When faced with an adverse story, rooted in a false narrative that may threaten real harm to corporate reputation, aggressive legal action may provide the best and most direct road to a solution. One of the most effective tools of civil litigation in the United States is the discovery process. Whether intentionally false reporting is the product of business competitors or Internet conspiracy theorists pursuing their own agenda, civil discovery offers the best available avenue for exposing the truth. The civil suit brought in 2017 against Alex Jones and his Internet platform Infowars by the yogurt company Chobani, LLC—that resulted in a full public retraction and apology by Jones—is one example of the effective use of legal action in the corporate fight against fake news.

Another generation may pass before the necessary legal and regulatory tools emerge to address the abuse of public media platforms for false attacks on corporate reputation—in the broader context of a free society and the protections of the First Amendment. In the meantime, the best defense in protecting the hard-earned good name of any business enterprise is vigilance, caution and a willingness to act when the threat to reputation is real and immediate.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.