Expert Advice and Director Liability

The CEO proposes a transformative merger transaction, or a massive new technology investment, or the spin-off of the company's slower-growth, but historically core, business. Or, as was the case in a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, management proposes to implement a poison pill with a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Directors and Boards 2010-04, Vol.34 (3), p.52
Main Authors: Regner, William D, Rosen, Jeffrey J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Boards of directors
Corporate liability
Court decisions
Experts
Ownership changes
State court decisions
State laws
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page 52
container_title Directors and Boards
container_volume 34
creator Regner, William D
Rosen, Jeffrey J
description The CEO proposes a transformative merger transaction, or a massive new technology investment, or the spin-off of the company's slower-growth, but historically core, business. Or, as was the case in a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, management proposes to implement a poison pill with a 4.99% trigger to protect against ownership changes that threaten the company's net operating loss carry-forwards. By statute in Delaware (Section141(e)), as well as in most other states, directors are fully protected in relying on expert advice. It's worthwhile to unpack the elements of the statute, since, according to the Delaware Supreme Court, a plaintiff arguing that its safe harbor is inapplicable must show either that one of the elements has not been satisfied, or that omitted information the board should have considered was so obvious and reasonably available that it was gross negligent not to consider it, or that the board's decision was so unconscionable as to constitute waste or fraud.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_366425602</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2055120841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_3664256023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDYz0bU0NDXjYOAqLs4yMDAwNjY04GRQca0oSC0qUXBMKctMTlVIzEtRcMksSk0uyS9S8MlMTMrMySyp5GFgTUvMKU7lhdLcDIpuriHOHroFRfmFpanFJfFFqQX5RSXF8cZmZiZGpmYGRsbEqAEAkDEsgg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>366425602</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Expert Advice and Director Liability</title><source>Business Source Ultimate (EBSCOHost)</source><creator>Regner, William D ; Rosen, Jeffrey J</creator><creatorcontrib>Regner, William D ; Rosen, Jeffrey J</creatorcontrib><description>The CEO proposes a transformative merger transaction, or a massive new technology investment, or the spin-off of the company's slower-growth, but historically core, business. Or, as was the case in a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, management proposes to implement a poison pill with a 4.99% trigger to protect against ownership changes that threaten the company's net operating loss carry-forwards. By statute in Delaware (Section141(e)), as well as in most other states, directors are fully protected in relying on expert advice. It's worthwhile to unpack the elements of the statute, since, according to the Delaware Supreme Court, a plaintiff arguing that its safe harbor is inapplicable must show either that one of the elements has not been satisfied, or that omitted information the board should have considered was so obvious and reasonably available that it was gross negligent not to consider it, or that the board's decision was so unconscionable as to constitute waste or fraud.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-9156</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DBOADD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: MLR Holdings LLC</publisher><subject>Boards of directors ; Corporate liability ; Court decisions ; Experts ; Ownership changes ; State court decisions ; State laws</subject><ispartof>Directors and Boards, 2010-04, Vol.34 (3), p.52</ispartof><rights>Copyright MLR Holdings LLC Second Quarter 2010</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,777,781,788</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Regner, William D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosen, Jeffrey J</creatorcontrib><title>Expert Advice and Director Liability</title><title>Directors and Boards</title><description>The CEO proposes a transformative merger transaction, or a massive new technology investment, or the spin-off of the company's slower-growth, but historically core, business. Or, as was the case in a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, management proposes to implement a poison pill with a 4.99% trigger to protect against ownership changes that threaten the company's net operating loss carry-forwards. By statute in Delaware (Section141(e)), as well as in most other states, directors are fully protected in relying on expert advice. It's worthwhile to unpack the elements of the statute, since, according to the Delaware Supreme Court, a plaintiff arguing that its safe harbor is inapplicable must show either that one of the elements has not been satisfied, or that omitted information the board should have considered was so obvious and reasonably available that it was gross negligent not to consider it, or that the board's decision was so unconscionable as to constitute waste or fraud.</description><subject>Boards of directors</subject><subject>Corporate liability</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>Ownership changes</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State laws</subject><issn>0364-9156</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDYz0bU0NDXjYOAqLs4yMDAwNjY04GRQca0oSC0qUXBMKctMTlVIzEtRcMksSk0uyS9S8MlMTMrMySyp5GFgTUvMKU7lhdLcDIpuriHOHroFRfmFpanFJfFFqQX5RSXF8cZmZiZGpmYGRsbEqAEAkDEsgg</recordid><startdate>20100401</startdate><enddate>20100401</enddate><creator>Regner, William D</creator><creator>Rosen, Jeffrey J</creator><general>MLR Holdings LLC</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20100401</creationdate><title>Expert Advice and Director Liability</title><author>Regner, William D ; Rosen, Jeffrey J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_3664256023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Boards of directors</topic><topic>Corporate liability</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>Ownership changes</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State laws</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Regner, William D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosen, Jeffrey J</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Directors and Boards</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Regner, William D</au><au>Rosen, Jeffrey J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Expert Advice and Director Liability</atitle><jtitle>Directors and Boards</jtitle><date>2010-04-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>52</spage><pages>52-</pages><issn>0364-9156</issn><coden>DBOADD</coden><abstract>The CEO proposes a transformative merger transaction, or a massive new technology investment, or the spin-off of the company's slower-growth, but historically core, business. Or, as was the case in a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision, management proposes to implement a poison pill with a 4.99% trigger to protect against ownership changes that threaten the company's net operating loss carry-forwards. By statute in Delaware (Section141(e)), as well as in most other states, directors are fully protected in relying on expert advice. It's worthwhile to unpack the elements of the statute, since, according to the Delaware Supreme Court, a plaintiff arguing that its safe harbor is inapplicable must show either that one of the elements has not been satisfied, or that omitted information the board should have considered was so obvious and reasonably available that it was gross negligent not to consider it, or that the board's decision was so unconscionable as to constitute waste or fraud.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>MLR Holdings LLC</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0364-9156
ispartof Directors and Boards, 2010-04, Vol.34 (3), p.52
issn 0364-9156
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_reports_366425602
source Business Source Ultimate (EBSCOHost)
subjects Boards of directors
Corporate liability
Court decisions
Experts
Ownership changes
State court decisions
State laws
title Expert Advice and Director Liability
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T11%3A47%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Expert%20Advice%20and%20Director%20Liability&rft.jtitle=Directors%20and%20Boards&rft.au=Regner,%20William%20D&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=52&rft.pages=52-&rft.issn=0364-9156&rft.coden=DBOADD&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2055120841%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_3664256023%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=366425602&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true