Publication Date: 2024-12-17
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory V. Varallo, Daniel E. Meyer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, David M. Sborz, Jackson E. Warren, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer M. Oster, David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC; Bedford Hills, New York for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Garrett B. Moritz, Thomas C. Mandracchia, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Barlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alex B. Spiro, Christopher D. Kercher, Jonathan E. Feder, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel Slifkin, Vanessa A. Lavely, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Catherine A. Gaul, Randall J. Teti, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John L. Reed, Ronald N. Brown, III, Caleb G. Johnson, Daniel P. Klusman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco, Ryan D. Stottmann, Miranda N. Gilbert, Jacob M. Perrone, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rudolf Koch, John D. Hendershot, Kevin M. Gallagher, Andrew L. Milam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian T. Frawley, Matthew A. Schwartz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; A. Thompson Bayliss, Adam K. Schulman, Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristen R. Seeger, John M. Skakun III, Elizabeth Y. Austin, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 2018-0408-KSJM
Court rejected board's post-trial efforts to obtain stockholder "ratification" of executive compensation award that failed to meet entire fairness standard where ratification was an affirmative defense required to be raised before the close of trial and where material misstatements and omissions in proxy materials meant the vote alone could not ratify a conflicted controller driven award.