There
is developing case law which will compel Boards of directors
in the US and Europe to accept that they must undertake and
lead IP decisions rather than leave them to management without
Board oversight. Companies may be subject to potential
litigation and liability. Directors may experience significant
personal exposure.
True
to form the SEC's policy is that any settlement involving
individuals be paid for by the individual and as part of the
settlement the person must agree to waive any right to seek
reimbursement from his or her company or an insurance policy.
Therefore
if Board members recognise that IP is a potential high risk
area that can no longer be delegated solely to management
without sufficient oversight, they will increasingly recommend
that valuation and how IP is exploited is a key determinate
to those fiduciary duties. In the process advice from
experts in the valuation and exploitation of intellectual
property and intangibles may be a key ingredient.
"IP
valuation is an important but complex undertaking - not a
box-ticking exercise and companies need to be aware of the
pressures that this may impose on their own management teams
(the US standard setters have already said they expect that
most companies will require expert assistance in this area)"
- PwC 2005.
“Sarbanes
– Oxley is turning into the Y2K of accountancy”
The Times May 12, 2004. In the US the provisions of valuation
services for external audit clients is prohibited under this
legislation. The UK's Auditing Practices Board has issued
new Ethical Standards effective after 15 December amounting
to the same (our News
Desk contains more information).
This
accounting regulation is a boon for independent valuation
expertise. Compliance with the new corporate governance
rules will impose new requirements on chief executives and
financial officers in the signing of accounts. It prohibits
the use of auditors as consultants. On the other hand
it has been observed as a boon for the accountancy profession
who hope to lift the squeeze on audit fees.
With
just four firms dominating the global audit business, the
requirement of rotation removes one competitor from the beauty
parade. If the independent expert, offering equivalent
expertise is put into the frame, the likelihood of another
firm being excluded on the ‘no consultancy’ rule
will not be a problem. Appointing Business
Assets Valuation would leave a choice of three firms
rather than one – not quite 'buggins’s turn'.
The Act has also
highlighted IPR in necessary public reporting and disclosure
requirements (for example R&D spends and litigation). There
is a conflict with competitive advantage through confidentiality. Beware;
a $5million fine and 20 years incarceration (willful contraventions)
or $1million and 10 years incarceration (knowing contraventions). Fear
not, valuation is relative not absolute.
The
Delaware judgment in the landmark case of re Caremark International
Inc Derivative Litigation (698A2d 959 Del.Ch 1996) served
notice. That decision imposed on directors the duty
to ensure that adequate monitoring systems exist in respect
of financial reporting.
Later
cases that underline directors exposure concerning a Board's
oversight of intellectual property include, re Walt Disney
Co Deriv Litig 825 A2d275 Del CR 2003 and the judgment in
respect of Research in Motion - an infringement matter regarding
the Blackberry and use of NTP's patents which case establishes
the potential liability of directors in respect of IP infringement
(NTP Inc v Research in Motion Ltd 2004 US App LEXIS 25767
Fed Cir December 2004).

|