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
In a series of opinions beginning with the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, Delaware courts have sustained a number of so-called “Caremark” claims based on the defendant board members’ breach of their duty of oversight. The courts have denied motions to dismiss in cases where the boards failed to act despite “red flags” alerting them to problems. But what happens if the “red flag” that alerts the board to a problem is a litigation demand letter submitted by a prospective claimant seeking to have the board take up litigation because of problems identified in the letter? In an interesting and troubling May 24, 2022 decision, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster sustained a claim based on these kinds of allegations, accepting what he called a “novel theory” with “admitted trepidation.” Though Laster sought in his opinion to contain some the more “disquieting” implications of this ruling, there is now at least a theoretical basis on which future prospective claimants could argue that a board’s rejection of a litigation demand letter could itself give rise to a separate breach of fiduciary duty claim.