Simply disagreeing with a company’s rationale in deciding not to file suit over a failed business and litigation strategy was not enough to sustain a shareholder derivative action in a suit that involved a $1.2 billion jury verdict and findings of vexatious conduct by DuPont, the Delaware Court of Chancery has ruled.
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, in a detailed 95-page opinion in Ironworkers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity Retirement & Pension Plan v. Andreotti, found that E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.’s board was well informed in deciding not to sue any of its directors or employees for their roles in potential patent infringement of a Monsanto product, a resultant $1.2 billion jury verdict, sanctions against DuPont of Monsanto’s attorneys fees for DuPont’s “vexatious” litigation conduct, and a $1.75 billion settlement that included a new licensing agreement with Monsanto.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
