Former CEO still has documents

B

BigGuy

New Member
Jurisdiction
Alaska
A multi million company fired their CEO. While searching for a new CEO, an interim one was hired as a contractor. This person refused to use their work email, but rather had all email correspondence, including documents, sent to their personal email account.

The company finally hired a new CEO and the former interim CEO is no longer at the company. I just learned that the former CEO still has documents belonging to the company on their personal email account. In order for the company to get any of these documents, they are being charged a minimum of 15 minutes at a very high hourly rate. This seems dishonest and almost like extortion. The documents are no longer theirs - they belong to the company. Is it lawful for the former CEO to keep the companies documents on their personal email accounts and charge the company to get access to them?
 
Zigner said:
Presumably, you mean a multi million dollar company. If so, then said company needs to consult with their corporate counsel.
Click to expand...
The problem is they are bleeding money fast and can't afford to pay corporate counsel. This is why I am asking here.
 
BigGuy said:
The problem is they are bleeding money fast and can't afford to pay corporate counsel. This is why I am asking here.
Click to expand...
An anonymous internet forum is no substitute for legal counsel.
 
Your use of plural pronouns to describe all persons and entities involved makes your post a bit difficult to follow.

The company allowed its CEO to use his/her own email instead of company email. By allowing that, the company took a risk.

No law prohibits the former interim CEO from doing what he/she is doing. Unless the company and individual had an agreement about this, it has two options: (1) pay what the individual is demanding; or (2) sue.
 
Withholding the corporate emails (absent the legal authority to do so, while DEMANDING money to release the emails held hostage) MIGHT be a crime under certain federal and/or AK laws.

The
BigGuy said:
multi million company
Click to expand...
should consult it's IN-HOUSE COUNSEL as in "corporate counsel" = lawyers employed by said business or corporation. A corporate counsel advises employees and businesses in and out of the courtroom on a variety of legal matters.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
Unfortunately, the OP wrote...
Click to expand...

If the entity is a TRUE corporation it employs lawyers, and would have someone titled as "Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and General Counsel"; usually reporting to the CEO.

In some organizations the person might even be titled as "Chief Legal Officer".

Take a look at the structure of the entity in which you are employed, you should see someone bearing the title, "Top Legal Honcho".
 
army judge said:
If the entity is a TRUE corporation it employs lawyers, and would have someone titled as "Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and General Counsel"; usually reporting to the CEO.

In some organizations the person might even be titled as "Chief Legal Officer".

Take a look at the structure of the entity in which you are employed, you should see someone bearing the title, "Top Legal Honcho".
Click to expand...

I don't believe that having such an employee is a requirement for a corporation.
 
army judge said:
If the entity is a TRUE corporation it employs lawyers, and would have someone titled as "Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and General Counsel"; usually reporting to the CEO.

In some organizations the person might even be titled as "Chief Legal Officer".

Take a look at the structure of the entity in which you are employed, you should see someone bearing the title, "Top Legal Honcho".
Click to expand...

Really? And what law requires a company to have one?

I know of several "multi-million $" corporations that don't have in-house counsel under any title.

A million and what it used to be.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
Really? And what law requires a company to have one?
Click to expand...

Zigner said:
I don't believe that having such an employee is a requirement for a corporation.
Click to expand...


I never invoked the the phrase "required by law".

I chose to use the phrase "TRUE corporation".

I chose the latter because it is more "weaselly", therefore better suited to use on a forum frequented by those of the "pedantic" persuasion.
 
army judge said:
I never invoked the the phrase "required by law".

I chose to use the phrase "TRUE corporation".

I chose the latter because it is more "weaselly", therefore better suited to use on a forum frequented by those of the "pedantic" persuasion.
Click to expand...

Your assertion was that a "true" corporation must have corporate counsel, Therefor, logically, if a "corporation" doesn't have legal counsel, then it's not a "true" corporation. However, that is not a requirement (under any law) for a corporation.
 
Then let me rephrase, I know of several true "multi-million $" corporations that don't have in-house counsel under any title.

And as I said before a million isn't what it used to be.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
And as I said before a million isn't what it used to be.
Click to expand...

Really?

This what you typed initially.

PayrollHRGuy said:
A million and what it used to be.
Click to expand...


Pedanticism is practiced by people so focused on errors that they sometimes end up missing the errors of their own.

Pendanticism is related to perfectionism in the fashion that individuals practicing this form of "abusive" form of perfectionism often experience the need to correct 'faults' in the pursuit of absolute 'perfection'.

When some people spy what is perceived as an error (in their view), they compulsively attempt to correct it, even if deemed unnecessary by others.

Sometimes the error(s) they are obsessed with correcting are not errors, just differences of opinion. This can lead to conflicts, when these obsessed people start "peckering" about the "alleged" errors.
 
army judge said:
If the entity is a TRUE corporation it employs lawyers, and would have someone titled as "Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and General Counsel"; usually reporting to the CEO.

In some organizations the person might even be titled as "Chief Legal Officer".

Take a look at the structure of the entity in which you are employed, you should see someone bearing the title, "Top Legal Honcho".
Click to expand...

They have access to a lawyer who handles sensitive issues - but it is on a "as needed" basis and is not free.
 
BigGuy said:
They have access to a lawyer who handles sensitive issues - but it is on a "as needed" basis and is not free.
Click to expand...

Well, this is a sensitive issue and they need to pay the lawyer. And I'll be willing to bet that lawyer is familiar with the contract that was in place.

Did you ever say where you are in all of this?
 
BigGuy said:
They have access to a lawyer who handles sensitive issues - but it is on a "as needed" basis and is not free.
Click to expand...

The only things that are free today that still have value are rain, sunshine, and the oxygen in the air you breathe.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top