That article states: > Although some scholars and practitioners have long argued that officers should or do owe a duty of oversight, and as a practical matter

That article states: > Although some scholars and practitioners have long argued that officers should or do owe a duty of oversight, and as a practical matter many officers likely assume that they have such an obligation, McDonald’s marks the first time this duty was explicitly acknowledged by a Delaware court. To me this seems to imply that the ruling was incorporating the already existing practice into law, which would seem to imply that it isn't a big shift.