Segway Inc. v. Hong Cai, C.A. No.
2022-1110-LWW (Del. Ch. Ct. Dec. 14, 2023)
The Caremark doctrine recognizes the duty of oversight for
directors of Delaware corporations. Under In re McDonald's
Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, 289 A.3d 343 (Del.
Ch. Jan. 26, 2023), corporate officers, and not just directors, owe
a duty of oversight, at least within the scope of each
officer's responsibilities. This decision confirms that the
same pleading standard – one requiring bad faith –
applies to officer oversight claims. Here, the plaintiff brought
such a claim against its former president arising out of declining
sales of the company's transportation devices and an increase
in accounts receivable.
The Court of Chancery understood the plaintiff to contend that the high-bar for Caremark claims is lowered in the case of officers. In dismissing the claim for failure to plead bad faith, the Court rejected this "distressing reading" of Delaware law, and confirmed that the pleading standard is the same regardless of the fiduciary target. As the Court explained: "The Caremark doctrine is not a tool to hold fiduciaries liable for everyday business problems. Rather, it is intended to address the extraordinary case where fiduciaries' 'utter failure' to implement an effective compliance system or 'conscious disregard' of the law gives rise to a corporate trauma. These tenets of [Delaware] law persist regardless of whether a Caremark claim is brought against a director or an officer. Officers' management of day-to-day matters does not make them guarantors of negative outcomes from imperfect business decisions."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.