• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
DE Corporate Law
Main image for The Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Negotiated Settlement with CEO a Proper Exercise of Business Judgment
Publications|Alert

The Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Negotiated Settlement with CEO a Proper Exercise of Business Judgment

Delaware Law Update

6.1.2020

The Court of Chancery’s ruling in Lululemon is the most recent example of the Delaware courts’ deference to a board of directors’ business judgment. The plaintiff’s rush to file suit resulted in numerous pleading deficiencies, which the disgruntled shareholder was ultimately unable to overcome. While Lululemon is largely defined by the shortcomings of the plaintiff, the court provides valuable insight on the processes undertaken by the board in carrying out its duties.

Lululemon focuses on the board’s decision to enter into a separation agreement and pay Laurent Potdevin a $5 million severance, instead of terminating the former chief executive for cause. The complaint accused Potdevin of creating a toxic culture that endorsed patriarchal beliefs and promoted a “boys club”-like atmosphere. Following a pair of undescribed incidents involving Potdevin, the board discussed at a dinner following a board meeting how to handle the executive. Thereafter, the board met five additional times to discuss Potdevin, and hired outside counsel to undertake an investigation. Upon receipt of the investigative report, the board authorized the chairman to negotiate the terms of Potdevin’s departure, which resulted in a $5 million severance in exchange for a full release and private departure from the company.

It is etched in the bedrock of the State of Delaware that the board of directors shall bear responsibility for the management of the company. The board is presumed to have acted in the best interests of the company. This standard requires an aggrieved shareholder to make a formal demand to the board of directors to investigate and pursue its claim prior to the shareholder filing suit, or, in the alternative, to demonstrate that a demand would have been futile. Where a shareholder fails to make a pre-suit demand, as was the case in Lululemon, the court will dismiss the lawsuit unless the shareholder can show that a majority of the board of directors was interested in the transaction, or that the decision was not the result of a valid business judgment. Even when viewing the complaint in a light most favorable to the shareholder, the Court of Chancery dismissed the lawsuit, based on the plaintiff’s failure to overcome the demand requirement.

Despite the plaintiff’s numerous shortcomings, the court’s analysis of certain aspects of the board’s decision-making process proves most valuable. While the plaintiff placed a large emphasis on the informal, undocumented meetings of the board, the Vice Chancellor was not convinced. First, the record established that the board discussed Potdevin’s conduct and the best course of action in a formal setting. Second, the pleadings indicated that the “off the record” conversations encouraged an open dialogue on the record regarding the matter. Third, although the court views un-minuted meetings suspiciously, the plaintiff failed to plead “other compelling facts” similar to those found in Texlon and Feuer to support demand futility. Viewing the decision to pursue a settlement in terms of the board’s authority to set executive compensation, the court found that the negotiated settlement was a proper exercise of business judgment.  

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Matthew J. Rifino
Matthew J. Rifino

Special Counsel

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel