Aronson v. Lewis

Last updated
Aronson v. Lewis
Seal of the Supreme Court of Delaware.svg
Court Delaware Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 1984 (1984-03-01)
Citation(s) 473 A.2d 805
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John J. McNeilly, Andrew G. T. Moore II, Andrew D. Christie
Case opinions
Decision by Moore
Keywords

Aronson v Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984), [1] is a US corporate law case, from Delaware concerning the possibility of a shareholder to bring a derivative suit.

Delaware State of the United States of America

Delaware is one of the 50 states of the United States, in the South-Atlantic or Southern region. It is bordered to the south and west by Maryland, north by Pennsylvania, and east by New Jersey and the Atlantic Ocean. The state takes its name from Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr, an English nobleman and Virginia's first colonial governor.

A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. Because derivative suits vary the traditional roles of management and shareholders, many jurisdictions have implemented various procedural requirements to derivative suits.

Contents

Facts

A shareholder claimed that the directors of Meyers Parking System Inc. had improperly wasted corporate assets. The CEO, Mr Fink, then 75 years old, was also a 47% shareholder and its founder. It was alleged he personally selected the other directors. They had given to Mr Fink a generous five year employment contract, a subsequent term as a consultant with a large salary, and an annual bonus equal to 5% of the company's pre tax profits. The contract also said that this continued regardless of Mr Fink's continued ability to perform the job.

Judgment

Justice Moore rejected the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that making a demand on the board would have been futile. He held that the 'business judgment rule' was applicable. This meant,

The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives. It is rooted in the principle that the "directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge". The rule exists in some form in most common law countries, including the United States, Canada, England and Wales, and Australia.

a presumption that in making a business decision, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis in good faith and in the honest belief that the action was taken in the best interests of the company. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Board of directors body overseeing an organization

A board of directors is a group of people who jointly supervise the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency. Such a board's powers, duties, and responsibilities are determined by government regulations and the organization's own constitution and bylaws. These authorities may specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and how often they are to meet.

Corporate law body of law that applies to the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. It refers to the legal practice relating to, or the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

Directors and officers liability Insurance is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of a company, or to the organization(s) itself, as indemnification (reimbursement) for losses or advancement of defense costs in the event an insured suffers such a loss as a result of a legal action brought for alleged wrongful acts in their capacity as directors and officers. Such coverage can extend to defense costs arising out of criminal and regulatory investigations/trials as well; in fact, often civil and criminal actions are brought against directors/officers simultaneously. Intentional illegal acts, however, are typically not covered under D&O policies.

<i>Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.</i>

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers. It is often cited as affirming the principle of "shareholder primacy" in corporate America. At the same time, the case affirmed the business judgment rule, leaving Ford an extremely wide latitude about how to run the company.

<i>Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd</i>

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts owed.

<i>In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation</i>

In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959, is a civil action that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery. It is an important case in United States corporate law and discusses a director's duty of care in the oversight context. It raised the question regarding compliance, "what is the board's responsibility with respect to the organization and monitoring of the enterprise to assure that the corporation functions within the law to achieve its purposes?" Chancellor Allen wrote the opinion.

Internal affairs doctrine

The internal affairs doctrine is a choice of law rule in corporations law. Simply stated, it provides that the "internal affairs" of a corporation will be governed by the corporate statutes and case law of the state in which the corporation is incorporated, sometimes referred to as the lex incorporationis.

United Kingdom company law corporate law of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

United Kingdom insolvency law

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986 ), the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<i>Cook v Deeks</i>

Cook v Deeks [1916] UKPC 10 is a Canadian company law case, relevant also for UK company law, concerning the illegitimate diversion of a corporate opportunity. It was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort within the British Empire, on appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada.

United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has done the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

<i>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

Lacos Land Co v Arden Group, Inc, 517 A 2d 271 is a US corporate law case, concerning coercive tactics by a board of directors in pursuing charter amendments.

Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are, as a general principle, the responsibility of that company alone. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person, unless they have expressly or implicitly assumed responsibility, guaranteed or indemnified the other person, as a general principle shareholders, directors and employees cannot be bound by the rights and duties of a corporation. This concept has traditionally been likened to a "veil" of separation between the legal entity of a corporation and the real people who invest their money and labour into a company's operations.

Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom is that part of UK company law which gives investors the right to sue the directors of a company, or vindicate another wrong to the company, particularly where the board of directors does not wish to act itself.

Canadian corporate law

Canadian company law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<i>Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc.</i>

Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 94, 514 ; aff'd, 571 A.2d 1140 is a U.S. corporate law case from Delaware, concerning defensive measures in the mergers and acquisitions context. The Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the use of defensive measures to advance the long-term goals of the target corporation, where the corporation was not in "Revlon mode".

References

  1. Aronson v. Lewis, 473A.2d805 (Del.1984). PD-icon.svgThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  2. Aronson, 473 A.2d at 812.