Subject category:
Ethics and Social Responsibility
Published by:
IBS Case Development Center
Length: 13 pages
Data source: Published sources
Share a link:
https://casecent.re/p/63052
Write a review
|
No reviews for this item
This product has not been used yet
Abstract
Hollinger International, the publishing division of Hollinger Inc, is an organisation based in the USA that owns many newspapers. Lord Conrad Black was the Chairman and Chief Executive of Hollinger International who along with his friend David F Radler, controlled Hollinger Inc''s operations through Ravelston, their private equity vehicle. In 2003, Tweedy Browne Co, a New York-based investment firm approached the Securities Exchange Commission to conduct a corporate governance review of Hollinger International. Black was forced to resign in November 2003. The report accused Black and his associates of robbing the company of millions of dollars. The final outcome of the Hollinger case is far from decided. The case study gives an insight into how an inactive board, an ineffective audit committee and a dominant CEO (Chief Executive Officer) can damage the corporate governance structure, which can be detrimental to shareholders'' interests. The case also offers scope to debate the role of directors and whether they should be held financially accountable for neglecting their responsibility to protect the interests of minority shareholders.
About
Abstract
Hollinger International, the publishing division of Hollinger Inc, is an organisation based in the USA that owns many newspapers. Lord Conrad Black was the Chairman and Chief Executive of Hollinger International who along with his friend David F Radler, controlled Hollinger Inc''s operations through Ravelston, their private equity vehicle. In 2003, Tweedy Browne Co, a New York-based investment firm approached the Securities Exchange Commission to conduct a corporate governance review of Hollinger International. Black was forced to resign in November 2003. The report accused Black and his associates of robbing the company of millions of dollars. The final outcome of the Hollinger case is far from decided. The case study gives an insight into how an inactive board, an ineffective audit committee and a dominant CEO (Chief Executive Officer) can damage the corporate governance structure, which can be detrimental to shareholders'' interests. The case also offers scope to debate the role of directors and whether they should be held financially accountable for neglecting their responsibility to protect the interests of minority shareholders.