LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
v. Adams, C.A. No. 4199-VCN (Del. Ch. March 30, 2012).
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.
The complaint in this case consisted of eight pages and
it was filed in November 2008, challenging the executive compensation plan
approved by the board of XTO Energy, Inc. The specific objection was
based on the fact that cash bonuses paid to key officers were not
tax-deductible because they did not meet the requirements of Section 162(m) of
the Internal Revenue Code. The cash bonuses did not meet the definition
in Section 162(m) of "other performance-based compensation," which must be
contingent upon achieving performance goals meeting certain statutory
requirements. As a result, the plaintiff alleged that the company was not
eligible for approximately $75 million in tax deductions over a two-year
period. Shortly after the complaint was served, the board adapted a
tax-deductible cash bonus plan which mooted most of the plaintiff's claims.
Between the time that most of the plaintiff's claims were mooted, and the
complaint's eventual dismissal, the defendants filed two motions to dismiss.
Short Summary of Holding
All requested fees were denied because the Court reasoned
that the complaint would not have survived the motion to dismiss, and
because: "An arguably poor business judgment, without more, does not
excuse demand on the board of directors in a derivative action."
The theoretical basis for the requested attorneys' fees
was the "corporate benefit doctrine," in light of the argument that the
complaint was the cause of the board subsequently approving the compensation
plan that satisfied the tax deductibility requirements of Section 162(m).
The Court reviewed the familiar prerequisites in order for attorneys' fees to
be awarded under the corporate benefit doctrine. See footnotes 30
to 31 and accompanying text.
That is, in order to be entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses under the corporate benefit doctrine, when claims
in the complaint are mooted, one must show that: (1) The suit was
meritorious when filed; (2) The action that provided the benefit to the
corporation was taken by the defendant before judicial resolution was achieved;
and (3) The result in corporate benefit was causally related to the
lawsuit. Because the futility of demand issue in this matter is
dispositive, the Court determined that it was only necessary to address the
first issue regarding whether the suit was meritorious when filed.
Demand Futility Under Court of Chancery Rule
The Court reviewed the familiar standard for demand
futility under Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984), overruled
on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000).
The Court also included a helpful comparison between Court of Chancery Rule
23.1 and the different analysis applicable to a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
Director Disinterestedness and Independence
The Court observed that when assessing the independence
and disinterestedness of directors under Rule 23.1, the Court considers the
composition of the board at the time the plaintiff brought the complaint and
not when the alleged wrong occurred.
The Court provided a very helpful definition of
"disinterested," and discussed the well-established case law explaining those
definitions. See footnotes 42-44 and accompanying text.
This 51-page decision also included a helpful definition
of the well-established standard for "independence" of directors. See
footnotes 45-48 and accompanying text. In connection with this analysis,
the Court referred to the cases that addressed the standard of Delaware law
that "director fees could have a disqualifying effect if they exceeded
materially what was commonly understood and accepted to be a usual and
customary director's fee." See footnotes 51 and 52 and
accompanying text. Footnote 53 refers to a paragraph in the complaint
that describes outside director compensation ranging from approximately
$460,000 to $517,000 in 2006 and in 2007 ranging from $679,000 $793,000.
Despite those amounts, the Court explained that the
complaint did not allege "any particularized facts from which this Court could
infer that this compensation materially exceeded what is commonly understood and
accepted to be a usual and customary director's fee. Outside board
members also received health benefits, retirement plans and severance.
Valid Exercise of Business Judgment and the
Second Prong of the Aronson Test
The Court recited the well established Delaware law that
"when a majority of the board is independent and disinterested under Aronson's
first prong, the plaintiff has a 'heavy burden' to satisfy the second
prong." The Court begins its analysis presuming that the business
judgment rule applies, and the plaintiff must establish facts rebutting this
presumption. To do so, she must plead particularized facts to create a
reasonable doubt that either:
"(1) the action was taken honestly and good faith, or (2)
the board was adequately informed in making the decision." See
footnotes 89 to 91.
The Court explained that the second prong of Aronson
may be met by pleading particularized facts that raise a reasonable doubt as to
whether the actions of the board were taken in good faith. Prior caselaw
has established three salient examples of what constitutes bad faith:
"(1) Intentionally acting for a reason other than
advancing the best interest of the corporation; (2) Acting with the intent of
violating applicable positive law; or (3) Intentionally failing to act in the
face of a duty to act, demonstrating a conscious disregard of the fiduciary's
duties." See footnotes 93 and 94.
The Court rejected the argument that actions "in
violation of general public policy" constitute an action taken in bad
faith. The Court also rejected the argument that the board failed to act
despite a duty to do so.
In rejecting other arguments by the plaintiff, the Court
relied, at footnote 117, on the seminal treatise by Stephen Radin entitled
The Business Judgment Rule, for the general principle that directors
are, in most cases, more qualified to make business decisions than are judges.
In sum, the Court determined that the claims based on
waste and inadequate disclosure would not survive a motion to dismiss.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses
would be denied.
Read more Delaware business
litigation case summaries and commentary on Delaware
Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, a blog hosted by Francis G.X.
Pileggi, of Eckert Seamans.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.