Recent Decision Clarifies Safe Harbors in DGCL Section 144 for Board Action
This case is important for the clear guidance it provides for anyone who seeks to understand Section 144(a)'s safe harbors when one or more board members are conflicted in connection with a board vote.
March 27, 2019 at 09:02 AM
5 minute read
The recent Delaware Superior Court decision in Toedtman v. Turnpoint Medical Devices, C.A. No. N17C-08-210 RRC (Del. Super. Ct., Jan 23, 2019), adds clarity to the case law interpreting Section 144 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), 8 Del C. Section 144. This case is important for the clear guidance it provides for anyone who seeks to understand Section 144(a)'s safe harbors when one or more board members are conflicted in connection with a board vote.
In Toedtman, the court discussed Section 144(a)'s three safe harbors and considered the application of two of the safe harbors to a former director's employment agreement as a CEO. Ultimately, the court decided that even though a self-interested director entered into the agreement, the agreement was nonetheless valid because it fell within at least one of Section 144(a)'s safe harbors.
The plaintiff in Toedtman filed suit alleging, among other things, that the defendant company breached his employment agreement by terminating his employment without cause. The company argued that the employment agreement was invalid because it was a self-interested transaction as a result of the plaintiff entering into the agreement on behalf of himself and the company.
The court explained that the purpose of Section 144 is “to provide safe harbors for interested director transactions, to prevent the transaction from being void or voidable solely because an interested director was involved.” Relying on a 1976 Delaware Supreme Court decision, the court explained that Section 144(a)'s safe harbors prevent an agreement from being invalid solely because an interested director was involved, quoting Fliegler v. Lawrence, 361 A.2d 218, 222 (Del. 1976).
The court summarized Section 144(a)'s three safe harbors: “First, the transaction may be approved by a majority of disinterested directors. Second, the transaction may be approved by a majority of disinterested shareholders. Third, the transaction may be shown to be entirely fair to the corporation at the time it was authorized by interested directors or shareholders.”
Under the first two safe harbors, the court assesses the validity of the transaction using a two-step analysis. First, the court determines whether the transaction falls within the safe harbor, and if it does, the court will then review the transaction under the business judgment rule. “The business judgment rule is 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 interest of the company.”
If the transaction falls outside of the first two safe harbors, the third safe harbor applies the entire fairness standard. The court explained that “the concept of fairness has two basic aspects: fair dealing and price,” and the burden is on the interested director to prove entire fairness. The court further explained that “fair dealing” concerns the conduct of corporate fiduciaries in effectuating the transaction while “fair price” concerns the economic and financial considerations of the contract. The court analyzes the fair price of the contract as of the time the transaction was approved.
The court held that the employment agreement fell within the Section 144(a)(1) safe harbor because it was approved by a majority of disinterested directors. In reaching this decision, the court first identified who the interested versus disinterested directors were, and concluded that the plaintiff was the only interested director. Next, the court noted that disinterested directors delegated to a corporate officer the board's power to negotiate and enter into employment agreements. The court explained that the delegation was a proper exercise of business judgment. The court declined to replace its judgment with that of disinterested directors and held that the employment agreement was valid because the board properly delegated its authority to negotiate and enter into employment agreements.
The court also held that the employment agreement satisfied the intrinsic fairness test in the Section 144(a)(3) safe harbor. As for fair dealing, the court concluded that the employment agreement followed “good corporate practice.” The court also concluded that the negotiation and structure of the agreement also appeared to be fair, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff acted in bad faith. Regarding fair price, the court concluded that the board authorized plaintiff's salary and the court refused to question the business judgment of disinterested directors in approving the plaintiff's salary. The court held the agreement was valid because it was a product of both fair dealing and fair price, and was therefore intrinsically fair.
The key takeaway is that DGCL Section 144 prevents an otherwise valid agreement from being invalidated solely because an interested director or shareholder was involved, as long as the challenged matter fits within one of the three safe harbors in Section 144(a).
Francis G.X. Pileggi is a litigation partner and vice chair of the commercial litigation practice group at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. Contact him at [email protected]. He comments on key corporate and commercial decisions, and legal ethics rulings, at www.delawarelitigation.com.
Chauna A. Abner is an associate in the commercial litigation practice group at the firm.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
- 2FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
- 3Ignore the Decline in US Rule of Law at Your Peril
- 4How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
- 5Jury Awards $1.25M to Police Officer Who Claimed Sexual Harassment
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250