Director and Officer Liability

Subscribe to Director and Officer Liability via RSS

Delaware’s courts traditionally have said that breach of the duty of oversight claims (sometimes referred to as Caremark claims) are “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” However, in series of cases following the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, Delaware courts have sustained a number of breach of the duty of oversight claims. More recently, Vice Chancellor Laster, in a pair of decisions in the McDonald’s case, elaborated significantly on the reach of duty of oversight. Among other things, Laster made it clear that the duty extends to corporate officers as well as to directors. Some commentators (including me) were concerned that Laster’s elaborations could lead to further lawsuits alleging breach of the duty of oversight.

Now, in what is the first high-profile post-McDonald’s Caremark claim of which I am aware, a group of four institutional investors has brought a breach of the duty of oversight claim against certain directors and officers of Meta, alleging that the executives failed to take sufficient action with respect to allegations that the company’s social media sites were being used for human trafficking. The new complaint appears to have been shaped to reflect many of the implications arising from Laster’s decisions in the McDonald’s case. A copy of the redacted public version of the plaintiffs’ March 20, 2023, complaint in the Meta case can be found here.Continue Reading Meta Board and Execs Hit with Oversight Duty Breach Claim Based on Trafficking Allegations

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), many of the SPACs that completed IPOs during the SPAC frenzy in 2020 and 2021 are nearing the end of their two-year search period. Many of these SPACs have not identified suitable merger partners and the SPACs are liquidating. One question I have been asking as these SPACs liquidate is whether there might be litigation. One the one hand, in the liquidation, the investors get their money back. On the other hand, in our litigious society litigation is always possible when plans don’t work out. In the latest example of how litigation might arise in the SPAC liquidation context, investors in SPAC which has announced its plan to liquidate have brought an action against the SPAC, its directors and officers, and the SPAC sponsor, in a fight about how assets the SPAC holds beyond the IPO trust funds are to be distributed.Continue Reading Liquidating SPAC Hit With Investor Suit Over Planned Asset Distribution

In the latest development in the Delaware courts’ evolving elucidation of the standards surrounding claims for breach of the duty of oversight – sometimes referred to as Caremark claims — a Delaware Court has held that the board of McDonald’s cannot be held liable for an alleged oversight duty breach in connection with the alleged scandals at the company involving sexual harassment allegations. This ruling in the directors’ favor follows closely after the same court’s recent ruling in the same case that the plaintiffs had stated a claim against an officer defendant for breach of the duty of oversight. The court’s recent rulings in the case provide extensive additional insights with respect to what must be alleged to establish a Caremark claim. Vice Chancellor Laster’s March 1, 2023, opinion in the case, dismissing the claims against the McDonald’s directors, can be found here.Continue Reading Breach of Duty of Oversight Claims Against McDonald’s Directors Dismissed

Sarah Abrams

In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Professional Liability Claims at Bowhead Specialty, takes a look at the challenges that financial trading based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) could mean for D&O, Professional, and Cyber insurers. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: AI Financial Trading; A Brave New World for Insurers

In a shareholder claim against the former global head of HR at McDonald’s, the Delaware Chancery Court has held that liability for breach of the duty of oversight, which Delaware courts had previously extended only to corporate directors, can also extend to corporate officers, as well. In addition, in a separate part of the opinion that may not gain as much attention as the duty of oversight ruling, the same court also held that a breach of fiduciary duty claim can be alleged against an officer based on sexual harassment allegations. The court’s January 25, 2023 opinion in this case, a copy of which can be found here, is likely to be the subject of scrutiny, commentary, and controversy.Continue Reading Breach of the Duty of Oversight Liability Extends to Officers as Well as Directors

On January 4, 2023, Delaware Vice Chancellor Lori Will denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the breach of fiduciary duty case a shareholder of the SPAC, Gig Capital3 Inc. (Gig3), against the SPAC’s sponsor and its board of directors in connection with the SPAC’s May 6, 2021, merger with Lightening eMotors. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants withheld information about the dilutive impact of the transaction on the cash value of the investors’ shares, depriving the investors of the information they need to decide whether or not to redeem their shares.

In a ruling substantiating well-publicized contentions of Stanford Law Professor Michael Klausner about SPACs’ structural flaws (doubly noteworthy because Klausner acted as co-counsel for the plaintiff in the Gig3 case), Vice Chancellor Will denied the defendants’ dismissal motion, raising questions about whether similar allegations could be raised against a host of other SPACs, as discussed below. A copy of Vice Chancellor Will’s opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Will Del. Court’s Ruling Mean a SPAC Lawsuit “Gold Rush”?

gavel2

As I noted in my recent round-up of D&O insurance issues, one of the consequences of the end of the SPAC IPO boom is that many of the SPACs from the IPO classes of 2020 and 2021 have given up trying to find a merger target and instead have opted to liquidate – which raises the question whether liquidation could lead to litigation. On the one hand, where’s the harm, since the investors get their money back. On the other hand, in our litigious society, litigation often follows after disappointed expectations. A December 30, 2022, lawsuit brought by SPAC investors against the SPAC, its sponsors, and its directors and officers, may provide an example of how litigation can arise in the wake of a SPAC liquidation.
Continue Reading Liquidating SPAC Hit With Suit Over Proposed Asset Distribution

The directors’ and officers’ liability environment is always changing, but 2022 was a particularly eventful year, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. The past year’s many developments also have significant implications for what may lie ahead in 2023 – and possibly for years to come.  I have set out below the Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022, with a focus on future implications. Please note that on Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 11:00 AM EST, my colleagues Marissa Streckfus, Chris Bertola, and I will be conducting a free, hour-long webinar in which we will discuss The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022. Registration for the webinar can be found here. I hope you will please join us for the webinar.Continue Reading The Top Ten D&O Stories of 2022

As a result of a host of recent developments – including the War in Ukraine, trade tensions with China, and growing issues involving digital assets – several long-standing regulatory regimes have become increasingly important for companies and their executives. These regulatory regimes include U.S. sanctions, export controls, anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-bribery and corruption laws. According to a recent memo from the Skadden law firm entitled “Why Directors and Executives Need to Pay Attention to Sanctions, Money Laundering, and Export Rules” (here), boards and senior management need to be especially vigilant with respect to these laws as the company officials can become targets of enforcement actions – indeed, directors and officer have been named personally in both civil and criminal enforcement actions involving these laws and regulations.
Continue Reading D&O Risks Relating to Trade Sanctions, Money Laundering, and Export Rules

One of the fundamental principles of corporate law – in the U.S., as well as in other countries – is that a corporate entity has a legal existence separate and apart from its shareholders, officers, and directors, and that the individuals cannot be held personally liable for the debts and obligations of the company. However, in a recent extraordinary and noteworthy decision, the Irish High Court, applying Irish law, pierced the corporate veil in finding two Irish directors and two shadow directors personally liable in connection with a multinational fraud scheme. As discussed below, the decision underscores the importance of directors’ duties and their obligations to be informed about their companies’ operations. A copy of the Court’s October 28, 2022 decision can be found here.
Continue Reading Irish Court Lifts Corporate Veil to Hold Directors Liable