May 1 (Reuters) - Post position for Saturday's 139th Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs after Wednesday's draw (listed as barrier, HORSE, jockey, trainer) 1. BLACK ONYX, Joe Bravo, Kelly Breen 2. OXBOW, Gary Stevens, D. Wayne Lukas 3. REVOLUTIONARY, Calvin Borel, Todd Pletcher 4. GOLDEN SOUL, Robby Albarado, Dallas Stewart 5. NORMANDY INVASION, Javier Castellano, Chad Brown 6. MYLUTE, Rosie Napravnik, Tom Amoss 7. GIANT FINISH, Jose Espinoza, Tony Dutrow 8. GOLDENCENTS, Kevin Krigger, Doug O'Neill 9. OVERANALYZE, Rafael Bejarano, Todd Pletcher 10. PALACE MALICE, Mike Smith, Todd Pletcher 11. ...
Echoing the growth in corporate social responsibility reporting,?a growing number of mostly small- and medium-sized companies are taking environmental and social stewardship further and becoming benefit corporations ? companies that are legally bound to have a positive effect on?society ? according to a report by Worldwatch Institute.
There are currently about 200 benefit corporations? ? none of which are?publicly traded companies at this point ? in the US, according to More Businesses Pursue Triple Bottom Line for a Sustainable Economy.?The total gross revenues for all certified benefit corporations are about $6 billion annually, and together these businesses employ about 30,000 people, the report says.
Signs indicate that interest in becoming a benefit?corporation?is growing.?The number of companies annually using benefit corporation nonprofit advocate B Lab?s online assessment tool, which is a marker for broader interest in eventual certification, grew from 280 in 2007 to 2,406 in 2012. By the end of the first quarter of 2013, some 8,000 individual companies had used the tool, according to the report.
Most benefit corporations to date are either small or medium-sized businesses. But they include a few larger companies that are privately held, such as the?outdoor apparel and accessory firm Patagonia, which became a benefit?corporation in early 2012 and posted annual sales of about $540 million for the fiscal year ending April 2012.
King Arthur Flour is another large benefit corporation. The employee-owned, 223-year-old company reported sales of about $84 million in 2010, the report says.
Proponents of this new corporate form say it ?bakes a triple bottom line into a company?s DNA? that frees companies from the fear of shareholder lawsuits if their decisions fail to maximize shareholder value because of some competing interest of other stakeholders, such as workers. Under current corporate case law in the US, for example, corporate directors are generally assumed to be liable in such suits.
Benefit corporation status is intended to establish the directors? fiduciary responsibility to consider the interests of all stakeholders. Formalizing a company?s social and environmental purposes under a legal framework also makes it more likely that its good intentions will survive the departure of its founders or any major growth spurts. Additionally, it means that company directors will have the legal backbone to fend off buyout offers from conventional corporations that do not have the same commitments.
Last November, legal experts at a National Association of State Charity Officials conference raised concerns over benefit corporations. The new corporations?need more oversight by state regulators in California as?flexibility built in to the registration process in that state could allow bad actors to mislead the public and the benefit corporation model could give investors a false sense of security, the legal experts said.
Do you work for a benefit?corporation? Or is your company considering becoming one? Please let us know in the comments section below.
Stay Up-to-Date On Environmental Management, Energy & Sustainability News with EL's Free Daily Newsletter
Torture memo author John Yoo and others who have called for Boston marathon bombing suspect?Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held in military detention are claiming vindication following reports that Tsarnaev stopped talking to interrogators after a judge advised him of his right to remain silent.
"Apparently the FBI interrogated the younger Tsarnaev for 16 hours," wrote torture memo author John Yoo at National Review. "And then, for reasons that are still unknown, the government read him his rights."
Yoo has never met a right he didn't want to ball up like a piece of paper and toss into a trash can in the name of national security. But despite being an attorney and professor at the prestigious University of California Berkeley School of Law, Yoo is either misleading his readers about why Tsarnaev was read his rights or unaware of a basic legal rule.
The judge appeared at the hospital because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state that suspects have to be brought before "a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer" and it must be done "without unnecessary delay." The Supreme Court has held that, absent exigent circumstances or the suspect waiving the right to go before a judge?as wannabe Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad reportedly did?a suspect has to appear before a judge within 48 hours of being apprehended. This is usually referred to in legal shorthand as "presentment," as in, "presentment before a judge."
"In practice, this means that law enforcement officers usually have no more than 48 hours to interrogate suspects without [informing them of their rights], and usually far less," explains Steve Vladeck, a law professor at American University School of Law. "Once presentment occurs, the judge, if not the interrogating officers, will advise the suspect of all of his rights."
That's what happened in this case. Tsarnaev's interrogators didn't read him his rights. Nor did the "Obama administration," as some, including Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), have claimed. A judge did it. The 48-hour rule exists to prevent the government from detaining people secretly and without a suspect knowing the charges against them. Needing to interrogate a suspect is not included in the exigent circumstances that can be used to justify delaying bringing the suspect before a judge. And the government could not have legally placed Tsarnaev in military detention, either, because absent evidence of concrete operational connections between Tsarnaev and Al Qaeda or its affiliates it would not be legal to do so?and it might not be constitutional even if it were technically legal.
"This is a rule of law issue, and it's also an effectiveness issue," says Hina Shamsi, an attorney with the ACLU. "Calls to do an end-run around constitutional rights are not just wrong they prevent a fair and effective prosecution."
The feds have every reason to play this one by the book. Few things could compound the tragedy of Boston like jeopardizing Tsarnaev's prosecution because of a rush to trample his constitutional rights.
