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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Forsythe v. ESC Fund Management Co. (U.S.), Inc., C.A. No. 1091-VCL (Del. Ch. May 9, 2012).
Issue Addressed
Whether the settlement of a derivative action that the Court considered fair should be approved despite the objections of the named plaintiffs.
Short Answer
The Court explained that the settlement could still be approved even if
Protas v. Cavanagh, C.A. No. 6555-VCG (Del. Ch. May 4, 20120).
Issue Addressed
Whether the plaintiff satisfied the pre-suit demand requirements in her derivative claims against the trustees of the trust.
Short Answer
No, and therefore her complaint was dismissed.
Background
This case involved claims by a common stockholder of a Delaware statutory trust
Freedman v. Adams, C.A. No. 4199-VCN (Del. Ch. March 30, 2012).
Issue Addressed
The Court of Chancery addressed the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees when there has been a stipulated dismissal of a derivative action which was largely mooted by measures taken by the defendant board of directors shortly after the complaint was served.
Background