X hits on this document

83 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

12 / 25

  • 3.

    Several recent federal cases also outline how Section 102(b)(7) protections have been eroded by the expansion of the good faith concept to cover inaction by the board that previously might have been thought to fall solely under the concept of due care and to not implicate the concept of good faith.

  • 4.

    In McCall v. Scott, 250 F.3d 997 (6th Cir. 2001), the Sixth Circuit, applying its understanding of Delaware law, held that a complaint alleging “conscious disregard of known risks” alleged action that would not be protected under the company’s Section 102(b)(7) provision and excused demand.

    • a.

      In addition, the Court stated, “while it is true that duty of care claims alleging only grossly negligent conduct are precluded by a § 102(b)(7) waiver provision, it appears that duty of care claims based on reckless or intentional misconduct are not.” 250 F.3d at

      • 1000.

        This legal conclusion went beyond any existing holding of

the Delaware Courts by equating intentional misconduct (which is

an explicit exception to exculpation in Section 102(b)(7)) with

recklessness (which is not).

b.

Noting that most claims in which reckless or intentional

misconduct are alleged involve breaches of the duty of loyalty or

allegations of a lack of good faith, the Court construed the

complaint as alleging that the directors did not act in good faith for

12

Document info
Document views83
Page views83
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 07:05:33 UTC 2017
Pages25
Paragraphs568
Words6397

Comments