Since the benefits of such contracts often dwarfs the value they receive from trading it should help 'remind' them of what they did and didn't know. But they should not be allowed to have it both ways.
Though, I don't know if it's even gonna be an option on the table.
It's a small world where everyone knows one another and I rub your back so you rub mine.
Cause it sounds like you're testifying that you're just not doing your job in any meaningful capacity, and I should be able to include that as a fact in a civil suit, since you swore in public record that it was the truth.
Forcing them to testify that they didn't fulfill their duties to the shareholders in order to not be responsible personally for the breaches may introduce enough liability all on its own.
They ask if an opened suit can possibly succeed. That is what "can I sue" means colloquially, one hundred percent of the time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/11/equifax-hit-...
So, if they testify that they knew - they're liable.
If they testify that they didn't know, and SEC can prove otherwise - same as above + perjury.
If they testify that they didn't know, and SEC cannot prove otherwise, then at least it is treated as them confirming their incompetence. So if they get, say, a bonus later, or a "golden parachute" for outstanding service on retirement, that is treated as evidence contradicting their claims.
Either there's enough evidence to convict those execs of crimes, or there isn't. If there's not sufficient evidence for that, then how can you suggest that the government should still have the authority to have them punished?
Clearly it doesn't apply to non US governments but the government of the United States has all of the tools already at their disposal to unilaterally implement just this sort of policy.
The policy question is a bit deeper than that, governing is ideally equal parts carrot and stick, and when there is clear evidence of a harm (and there is in this case) where it is impractical for the citizen to prosecute their own defense (could be debated either way) then the last line of defense for the citizen is the enforcement by their collectively empowered authority. That is perhaps the fundamental source of authority for any government.
And a fine/penalty for not doing their job and putting so many lives at stake. They should literally be driven down to middle class mediocrity for their negligence.
There has to be some example set for future transgressions.
It shouldn't take more than a couple days. That's enough time to verify you had a problem and get a good picture of the extent. You might not have all the details nailed down, but you put out the information you know and say "We'll provide more details as they become available."
Whoever dismantles their company could try to frame it that way, but the rest of the industry will see through that. It won't be a good situation for us to be in.
Right now, a baker can refuse to sell you a cupcake if you won't tell them your SSN. Your electric company can refuse to sell you power if you don't tell them your SSN. The phone company can refuse to give you dial tone. They can even refuse to serve you if your SSN has too many fives in it, or not enough. The character of the SSN currently assigned to you is simply not a protected class for anti-discrimination purposes, even though the difficulty in changing it is somewhere between one's race and one's religion.
The people need to reign in the corporate interests of the world. Companies are already larger and more powerful than governments. People should be freaking out. This event just underscores that need.
That seems like a dangerous, slippery road with a lot of unintended side effects.
This is why it's important we not allow laws to be passed with the assumption that overly broad permission grants are OK, because they'll only be used 'correctly'.