THE RECALCITRANT DIRECTOR AT BYTE, INC.:
CORPORATE LEGALITY VS. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE (INTRODUCTION)
Byte products have three existing plants operating at full capacity (24 hours a day & 7 days a week). The new plant proposed to be built in the South Western US will require 3 years before it is fully on line. This means that byte cannot meet the anticipated demand for its products. Alternative courses have been exploded- 1.) Licensed byte products and technology to other U.S. manufacturers, 2.) Utilize overseas facilities and licensing. Mr. James Elliot CEO and chairman found an existing plant in Plainville, (a small town in northeastern United States) that would meet the company’s immediate production needs until the new plant comes on-line in three years. The Plainville facility has been closed for the last 8 years. It would take about three years to get the Plainville plant on-line. Mr. James Elliot present his recommendation to the Board of Directors to purchase an existing plant in Plainville as a temporary plant until the new one is on-line in three years. All on the Board except one (10-1) seem to the favor the proposal. What ensues the discussion Elliot and Kevin Williams’s board member over the proposal purchase a plant with the intention of closing it in three years.
The discussion between and Elliot and Williams focuses on the impact on the town and on the 1,200 potential employees of opening this temporary plant. The town and the townspeople had gone through a catastrophic closing eight years ago when the plant in question was closed. A recess in the meeting is called and when the board meeting reconvened, a major shift has taken place. The vote could be 7-4 or 6-5 for the proposal, but Elliot desires a unanimous vote. As the lengthy discussion ends - Mr. Williams is asked whether a compromise can be reached. He responds, “I have to say no and I don’t see a middle ground.” Statement of the Problems
Please join StudyMode to read the full document