On June 21, 2012, in response to Plaintiff alleging HP’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders by failing to implement a succession plan, the Delaware Court of Chancery explained that it is “not aware” of any “Delaware precedent that stands for the proposition that failure to adopt a long-term succession plan amounts to a breach of duty.” Zucker v. Andresssen, C.A. No. 6014-VCP, p. 28 (Del. Ch. June 21, 2012) (CLICK FOR OPINION). In support of its opinion, the Court cited another case, acknowledging: “[a]spirational ideals of good corporate governance practices for boards of directors that go beyond the minimal legal requirements of the corporation law are highly desirable, often tend to benefit stockholders, sometimes reduce litigation and can usually help directors avoid liability. But they are not required by the corporation law and do not define standards of liability.” Zucker, p. 29 (citing Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.ed 244, 256 (Del. 2000)).
Despite the foregoing, the Court cited other procedural requirements that the Plaintiff did not satisfy, and concluded its opinion by emphasizing it “ha[d] no need to address whether the duty of care requires directors to adopt succession plans, and it expresses no view on that issue.” Zucker, p. 30. While the Zucker Court did not completely resolve the issue, dicta within the opinion indicates such a claim may be difficult to establish.
The Zucker opinion reflects the Delaware Court’s impression on the issue, but it is important to keep in mind that Iowa Courts frequently look to Delaware law and opinions for guidance on business and corporate law issues.
Matthew McKinney, as owner and host of this site, cannot and does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information presented on or through this site. The information on this website does not constitute legal advice and readers should not rely on it to solve problems; Further, you should seek licensed counsel before taking any action. Any information provided on this site is presented “As Is” for your personal curiosity and enjoyment. It is not meant to be relied upon for legal advice, counsel, or for any other purposes. Such information does not take the place of a lawyer. Rules and laws differ by jurisdiction and the information contained within this website may not apply in your jurisdiction. The appearance of articles, listings, or ads, by or for professionals, on this site, does not constitute an endorsement. In all cases, you are responsible for determining the quality of services, information, and/or advice provided by professionals through, or as a consequence of, your use of this site. Neither Liability nor responsibility shall arise to any person or entity with respect to loss or damage caused (or alleged to be caused), directly or indirectly, by information posted on this website, or by reason of contact with a professional listed on, or posting information to, this site. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing this website and practice is limited to jurisdiction where lawyers are admitted. The information furnished on the website is only general and not a substitute for personalized legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the individual(s) situation. Laws can change daily and new laws may, and likely will, affect the accuracy of the information herein. The information herein may be outdated and replaced by new law.
If you are seeking representation, please read the following notice before sending an e-mail:
Sending an e-mail will not make you a client. Until an agreement regarding representation is reached with you, anything you send will not be confidential or privileged. Before representation can occur, a lawyer will first take you through the conflict of interest procedure and see that you are put in touch with the lawyer best suited to handle your matter.
If you proceed with an e-mail, you confirm that you have read and understood this notice.