Tag Archives: Caremark

Directors may face oversight liability for not properly monitoring key drug’s clinical trial

This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications,  for over 30 years. The business judgment rule cannot shield Clovis Oncology Inc.’s directors from shareholder charges that they breached their oversight duty by ignoring reports that their flagship cancer-fighting drug was unlikely … Continue Reading

Delaware Board’s Fiduciary Duty of Oversight for Foreign Operations

In re Puda Coal, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6476-CS (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2013)(Bench ruling). Thanks to Tariq Mundiya of Willkie Farr for forwarding the transcript. This bench ruling, highlighted on The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog, for which I am a contributing author, addressed a claim for a breach of the board’s duty of … Continue Reading

Chancery Finds Inadequate Representation by Derivative Plaintiff; Dismisses Complaint with Prejudice

South v. Baker, C.A. No. 7294-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 25, 2012). Issues Addressed: This decision is a candidate for inclusion in the pantheon of iconic Delaware Court of Chancery opinions addressing the following issues:  (1) When derivative plaintiffs and their counsel will be presumptively found to provide inadequate representation resulting in the complaint’s dismissal with … Continue Reading

Dismissal of One Derivative Lawsuit Not Bar to Second Derivative Claim by Second Stockholder

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement Systems v. Pyott, C.A. 5795-VCL (Del. Ch. June 11, 2012). Issues Addressed Whether collateral estoppel, Rule 23.1 or Rule 12(b)(6) apply to require the dismissal of a Delaware derivative suit based on the dismissal in California of a related derivative suit in which a federal court granted a Rule 23.1 … Continue Reading

Chancery Denies Motion to Compel Supplemental Section 220 Production Due to Post-Trial Developments

Amalgamated Bank v. NetApp, Inc., C.A. No. 6772-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2012). Issue Addressed Whether supplemental documents should be produced to comply with post-trial determination pursuant to DGCL Section 220 that books and records must be provided. Background In October 2010, the plaintiff in this case filed a stockholder derivative action in California based on … Continue Reading

Chancery Stays Derivative Action in Favor of Federal Securities Class Action

Brenner v. Albrecht, C.A. No. 6514-VCP (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012), read opinion here. Issue Addressed The issue addressed in this case was whether a derivative action in Delaware should be stayed or allowed to proceed despite a related, pending federal securities class action. Background The plaintiff claimed in this derivative action that the directors and … Continue Reading

Court of Chancery Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Waste and Caremark Claims Challenging Goldman Sachs Compensation Structure

In the case of In Re The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5215-VCG (Oct. 12, 2011), read opinion here, Vice Chancellor Glasscock, in his first major corporate law decision, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative action brought against Goldman’s current and former directors for failure to make a pre-suit demand. At … Continue Reading

Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Dow Shareholders’ Derivative Claims Regarding Rohm and Haas Acquisition for Failure to Plead Demand Futility

In Re The Dow Chemical Company Derivative Litigation, Cons. No. 4339, (Del. Ch., Jan. 11, 2010), read opinion here. Kevin Brady and Ryan Newell of the Connolly Bove firm prepared this synopsis. On January 11, 2010, a year after a major corporate battle between the Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and Rohm & Haas Company (“ROH”) … Continue Reading

Bainbridge on Chandler’s Citigroup Decision

Professor Bainbridge provides scholarly commentary here on the recent Chancery Court decision in Citigroup, including a rebuttal to Professor Jay Brown and an analysis of Caremark duties, as well as a discussion of the theoretical and practical underpinning of the Business Judgment Rule. My prior highlighting of the Citigroup case and a link to the … Continue Reading

Chancery Court Allows Claims To Proceed Against Greenberg, Other AIG Directors

American International Group, Inc., Consolidated Derivative Litigation; AIG, Inc. v. Greenberg, et al., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 15 (Feb. 10, 2009)("AIG I") 965 A.2d 763 (Del. Ch. 2009), read opinion here. This Chancery Court decision denied a Motion to Dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against former AIG Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and other AIG directors in connection … Continue Reading