I was quoted by Bloomberg Law about a Chancery decision that applied Caremark duties to a corporate officer of McDonald’s, and Professor Bainbridge wrote a thorough scholarly analysis about the case, that cannot be improved on, entitled: Court of Chancery decision finding that Caremark claims could proceed against the top HR officer of McDonald’s.

Then, not long afterwards, the Court of Chancery held that Caremark claims against the Board of Directors in connection with related HR-type claims failed to satisfy the pre-suit demand futility test for derivative suits.

Professor Stephen Bainbridge also published a scholarly post about this important decision, which cites to other learned sources, on his eponymous blog that I cannot improve upon. The good professor’s scholarship was cited by the Court of Chancery in its opinion, as it often is in Delaware court decisions on corporate law.

Paying clients are keeping me from blogging updates on other recent decisions, but when one of the nation’s leading corporate law experts writes about a recent decision like this one, it would be superfluous for me to add to the chorus.