Individuals serving as corporate officers take on significant potential liability exposures in the performance of their duties. As a result, most companies provide their officers with advancement, indemnification, and insurance protection for liabilities incurred while acting as corporate officers. However, it is not always clear who is an “officer” for purposes of claiming the benefits
As readers of this blog know, one of the vestiges of the SPAC frenzy that peaked in 2021 is a large volume of SPAC-related securities class action litigation; indeed, as I have recently noted, SPAC-related securities class action lawsuits continue to be filed. In addition to these federal court securities suits, prospective claimants with SPAC-related grievances have also filed Delaware state court breach of fiduciary duty actions, a form of litigation often referred to as “MultiPlan actions,” in reference to the MultiPlan lawsuit, which, as discussed here, was the first of these Delaware court actions to survive a motion to dismiss. Since the ruling in the MultiPlan case, plaintiffs have largely been successful in surviving dismissal motions in these kinds of cases.
However, as discussed in a June 2024 memo from the Skadden law firm (here), in May 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss in the SPAC-related direct action breach of fiduciary duty suit relating to Canoo Inc., a company that was the result of a 2020 merger with a publicly traded SPAC, Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV. According to the law firm memo, the Court’s ruling was the first opinion granting a motion to dismiss in a MultiPlan claim. As discussed below, the Court’s opinion reflects a number of interesting observations about the lawsuit and claims of this type. A copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 opinion can be found here. Continue Reading Delaware Court Grants Dismissal Motion in SPAC Transaction Proxy Disclosure Case
For many years, Delaware’s courts emphasized that duty of oversight claims (often known as Caremark claims) are “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” However, in a line of cases beginning with the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, Delaware courts have sustained various plaintiffs’ assertion of breaches of the duty of oversight. This in turn encouraged more claimants to file duty of oversight claims, a development that clearly has alarmed the Delaware courts. The more recent result has been a series of cases in which the Delaware Chancery Court has emphatically shot down would-be duty of oversight claims.
The latest of these decisions is a ruling in a case involving the directors of Centene Corporation, in which Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of the duty of oversight claims against the Centene board, in an opinion that emphasizes the high bar for Caremark liability. A copy of the July 12, 2024, opinion in Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Brinkley can be found here. A July 15, 2024, Memo from the Fried Frank law firm about the court’s ruling can be found here. Continue Reading Del. Chancery Court Rejects Oversight Breach Claims Against Centene’s Board
In a recent decision in an insurance coverage dispute, the Delaware Superior Court granted the insurers’ motions to dismiss, holding that coverage under two towers of insurance was precluded, respectively, by the No Action clause and the Past Acts Exclusion. Insurance coverage practitioners and observers will find this decision interesting in and of itself, for what it says about the relevant policy provisions, and as a general matter, as an example of a Delaware court coverage decision. As discussed below, the decision arguably is an expectations-defying example of an insurer-friendly Delaware court coverage decision. A copy of the court’s May 9, 2024 decision opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court Dismisses Coverage Suit Based on No Action, Prior Acts Clauses
As readers undoubtedly have noted, one of the hot topics these days is the question whether corporations should change their state of incorporation from Delaware to that of another state, usually either Nevada or Texas. The dialog on this topic was already underway when Elon Musk supercharged the conversation by vowing, in reaction to the Delaware court’s disallowance of his $56 billion pay package, to have Tesla change its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas. I suspect that the state of incorporation debate is going to be with us for some time to come, making it important for those of us who might have to participate in (or at least listen to) the conversation to get a handle on the key differences between the states.Continue Reading Delaware or Another State: What’s the Difference?
From time to time, I am asked to speak directly to corporate boards of directors. I find these opportunities endlessly fascinating. Among other things, I learn so much from the directors’ questions. One frequently recurring question I get is: what can directors do to avoid litigation or to be in a position better defend themselves if they are sued. The first thing I always talk about when asked these kinds of question is the importance of board minutes. Because this is one of my go-to talking points when I meet with boards, I was particularly pleased to see the recent post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance blog written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., the former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice and Chancellor, in which Strine highlights the importance of board minutes in corporate litigation. Strine’s comments are essential reading for anyone concerned with the liabilities of corporate directors. Strine’s April 4, 2024 article can be found here.Continue Reading The Importance of Board Minutes
For nearly 40 years, Delaware Corporations have been permitted to adopt corporate charter provisions exculpated their directors from liability. Effective August 1, 2022, Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporations Law (DGCL) was amended to permit Delaware corporations to adopt charter provisions exculpating officers, in order to provide officers with protection from liability for monetary damages similar to the protection available to directors. In the time since the officer exculpation amendment provision went into effect, many Delaware corporations have adopted officer exculpation provisions; the record so far suggest that these provisions generally enjoy significant shareholder support. As discussed below, these developments should also be of interest to D&O insurance professionals.Continue Reading Companies Adopting Officer Exculpation Amendments to Corporate Charters
It is an idea that suddenly is all the rage – that companies should shake the Delaware dust off their feet and reincorporate elsewhere. Elon Musk has famously said, in the wake of the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision voiding his $55.8 billion pay package, that he will seek to reincorporate Tesla in Texas. (SpaceX, also a Musk company, has in fact already reincorporated in Texas.) The former Attorney General William Barr and another GOP official published a Wall Street Journal column arguing that Delaware’s courts are driving corporations away (as discussed here), and suggesting that companies increasingly will find it more attractive to be incorporated in Nevada or another state. Some companies have indeed left Delaware and reincorporated elsewhere – including not just SpaceX, but also TripAdvisor, for example. Why would a company change its state of incorporation from Delaware to another state? And with reference to the focus of this blog, does a company’s redomestication from Delaware to another state have implications for the potential liability exposures of the company’s directors and officers?Continue Reading Does a Del. Corp.’s Reincorporation in Another State Reduce D&O Liability Exposure?
On January 30, 2024, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick issued a 200-page post-trial opinion voiding the $55 billion compensation package that the Tesla board had approved for the company’s CEO, Elon Musk. In the following guest post, Priya Huskins, Esq., Senior Vice President at Woodruff Sawyer, takes a detailed look at Chancellor McCormick’s opinion and considers the opinion’s practical implications. A version of this article was previously published in the D&O Notebook. I would like to thank Priya 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 Priya’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Lessons from the Rescission of Elon Musk’s $55.8B Option Grant
In a January 25, 2023, opinion in the McDonald’s case that has become known as McDonald’s I, Delaware Vice Chancellor Travis Laster held, as discussed in detail here, that liability for breach of the duty of oversight can extend to corporate officers as well as to directors. While there have been subsequent cases that have raised breach of the duty of oversight claims against officers, there have been no published decisions analyzing the duty of oversight as pertains to officers — that is, until now.
In a short December 14, 2023, opinion that emphasizes the high bar for oversight claims against officers, Vice Chancellor Lori Will dismissed claims that the personal transportation device company Segway brought against its former President. VC Will expressly rejected any suggestion that the standard to plead an oversight breach claim against a corporate officer is any lower than the high standards applicable to oversight claims against directors. A copy of VC Will’s opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Delaware Court: High Barrier for Oversight Claims Against Officers