When a Whistleblower Complaint Becomes a Board-Level “Red Flag”
In a recent Caremark decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery largely denied a motion to dismiss, holding that most of Regions Bank’s board purportedly ignored red flags raised in a whistleblower report concerning the bank’s unlawful overdraft practices — practices that later led to the company paying $191 million in penalties and remediation to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The court found a former in‑house lawyer’s draft complaint sent to the board was a true red flag, and it held that merely engaging outside counsel to investigate, without timely corrective action, does not automatically defeat an inference of bad faith at the pleadings stage. The opinion underscores that both documented, prompt board‑level escalation and timely corrective action are critical as to compliance risks that are central to the business.
Get Your Story Straight: Inconsistency in Plaintiff’s Allegations & Theories Dooms Complaint
This past summer, in a decision that attracted little attention, Vice Chancellor David in the Delaware Court of Chancery tossed Joel B. Ritchie v. G. Leonard Baker et al., a shareholder derivative suit filed on behalf of Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. against certain directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to off-label marketing practices. The Court dismissed the complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 because Plaintiff, who had not made a pre-litigation demand, failed to plead that the Board was unable to bring its business judgment to bear on assessing such a demand and, as such, the demand was not futile.
Chancery Rejects ‘Quibbles’ As The Basis For Caremark Claims, Underscoring The Wide ‘Gulph’ Between Imperfect Compliance and Purposeful Lawbreaking
On October 1, 2024, in In re TransUnion Derivative Stockholder Litigation, Vice Chancellor Will in the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a derivative suit against the Directors of TransUnion for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty of oversight in relation to agreements made pursuant to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) consent order. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish a breach under both theories presented, one under Caremark and one under In re Massey Energy, because while the TransUnion Directors may have conducted their oversight duty imperfectly, they did so with a good faith effort.
Chancery Court Reminds Bricklayers of Sturdy Foundation Required to Plead Demand Futility for Caremark Claims
Last month, in Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Brinkley, Delaware’s Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder plaintiff’s derivative suit against the directors and officers of Centene Corporation for purported breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their oversight of company compliance with Medicaid laws and regulations. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish demand futility pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. Put another way, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to pursue claims on behalf of Centene.
“Bad Things Can Happen to Corporations” – But Officers Cannot Be Liable Absent Bad Faith
In Segway, Inc. v. Cai, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed one of the increasingly common breach of fiduciary duty cases brought against corporate officers after last year’s seminal McDonald’s decision, which clarified that officers owe a duty of oversight just as directors do. No doubt reassuringly for those officers, Vice Chancellor Will corrected the “misimpression that an oversight claim pursued against an officer is easier to plead than one against a director.” The opinion definitively confirms that “bad faith remains a necessary predicate to any Caremark claim.”
A Judicial Notice That Judicial Notice Has Its Limits
In a significant decision the week before the Christmas holiday, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s dismissal of Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. Collis et al. (“Lebanon”), reinstating stockholder derivative claims against the directors of AmerisourceBergen Corporation arising out of the Company’s wholesale distribution of prescription opioids in the United States. Interested readers can view our blog’s prior discussion of the Court of Chancery’s dismissal here.
Can ChatGPT Do Our Jobs Better Than Us? Not Yet.
Artificial intelligence and its impact on the practice of law is in the news again. Readers likely have heard about the attorneys that used ChatGPT, an artificial chatbot that synthesizes high volumes of data, to draft a legal brief that they submitted in a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Unfortunately for these practitioners, ChatGPT cited multiple cases that did not exist, and the attorneys recently endured a sanctions hearing before the presiding district judge.
Corporate Officers’ Role in Corporate Governance: What Officers Need to Know
The recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision, In re McDonald’s Corporate Stockholder Derivative Litigation is a reminder of corporate officer duties and the vital role that corporate officers play in corporate governance, at both publicly and privately held corporations. These duties stem from officers’ status as both agents and fiduciaries. For boards of directors and other officers to perform their roles effectively, it is critical for officers to understand an satisfy their duties. Failure to do so may deprive boards of directors of information they need to monitor operations, mitigate risks and establish strategy and can expose officers to personal liability.
Court of Chancery Dismisses Director Oversight Claims Related to Mission Critical Risk
In a March 1, 2023 opinion (In re McDonald’s Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 2021-0324-JTL), the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed duty of oversight claims against director defendants and provided helpful guidance on “mission critical” risks, the “gross negligence” standard under the business judgment rule, and redactions in productions of books and records under DGCL Section 220, including the potential that a motion to dismiss relying on overly redacted documents from a 220 production could be converted to a motion for summary judgment by the court. The court also entered an order on the same day, granting the defendants’ Rule 23.1 motion and dismissing the action in its entirety, including claims against the company’s former Global Chief People Officer. The court had previously denied a motion to dismiss those claims under Rule 12(b)(6) on January 25, 2023, as discussed further here, underscoring the important role of Rule 23.1 in derivative cases.
Where Caremark Meets Park: A New Era of Regulatory Compliance and Criminal Liability
In a recent post on PharmExec.com, Paul Kalb (a co-founder of Sidley’s Global Life Science practice) and Coleen Klasmeier (a former partner who co-led Sidley’s Food, Drug and Medical Device practice) discuss how the intersection of the Caremark and Park doctrines impact life science companies, particularly when it comes to regulatory compliance and the liability of company officials.
