In a recent Chancery decision involving challenges to executive compensation, Eckert v. Hightower, C.A. No. 2024-0569-MTZ (Del. Ch. March 24, 2025), the court reiterates the basic standards that determine if allegations can survive a motion to dismiss when the charter includes an exculpatory clause which requires that a majority of directors have demonstrated a
Delaware High Court gives investors another shot at proving pharma directors’ opioid liability
Frank Reynolds, who has been covering Delaware corporate decisions for various national publications for over 35 years, prepared this article.
A Delaware Supreme Court milestone ruling has revived a shareholder suit over pharmaceutical giant AmerisourceBergen Corp.’s role in the nation’s opioid crisis, finding the Court of Chancery should not have dismissed the derivative action by
Chancery Court finds collection of bad faith factors enough to keep GoDaddy suit alive
This article was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law and writing about it in various publications for more than 35 years
The Delaware Court of Chancery has allowed GoDaddy Inc. shareholders to continue their suit that claims their directors exhibited bad faith by disloyally rubber-stamping the under-valued buyout of a
Court of Chancery says GoPro directors had no duty to doubt managers’ soaring drone camera predictions
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 Delaware Court of Chancery recently grounded a GoPro Inc. investor suit over the troubled launch of the Karma camera drone for failure to show the directors faced liability
Court of Chancery lets investor sue again over banking execs quid pro quo replacement stock plan
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 Delaware Court of Chancery recently allowed the same shareholder who successfully challenged a 2015 Investors Bancorp Inc. director and officer compensation plan to pursue a new suit over
Chancery Allows Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty for Approval of Stock Options in Violation of Stock Option Plan
Pfeiffer v. Leedle, C.A. No. 7831-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2013).
Issue Addressed: Whether the approval of stock option grants that exceeded the maximum number of stock options allowed under the stock incentive plan was the basis for a breach of fiduciary duty claim against both the board that approved it and the
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
Delaware Does Not Impose Fiduciary Duty, Per Se, to Minimize Corporate Taxes
Seinfeld v. Slager, C.A. No. 6462-VCG (Del. Ch. June 29, 2012).
Issues Presented
(1) Whether board approval of a supplemental retirement bonus was a breach of fiduciary duty to the extent that it constituted waste and did not qualify for a tax deduction; and (2) Whether a stock option plan for the directors was
Chancery Decides: Not Per Se Breach of Fiduciary Duty for a Board to Fail to have a Succession Plan.
Zucker v. Andreessen, C.A. No. 6014-VCP (Del. Ch. June 21, 2012).
Issues Presented
(1) Whether a $40 million severance package for the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, who could have been terminated for cause, constituted corporate waste; and (2) Whether the failure of the board to have a clearly defined succession plan in place was a
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