English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The current events at Hewlett-Packard (HP) offer steadfast corporate governance professionals a new case study concerning: (1) the powers of the Board, (2) the role of the Chair, and (3) the expectation by individual directors to expect boardroom due process to redress issues. While the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) changed the requirements for transparency and financial disclosure for the CEO and CFO, it remained too silent concerning director-to-director transparency and the role of the Chair to take action without full board consent. This is a re-occurring directorship problem as Enron, Disney, and other exigent cases show. These cases point to the need for director-to-director transparency and disclosure if board members are to avoid unsubstantial board action.

Why do directors feel so separate when they are interconnected?