Last month, we discussed the Delaware Court of Chancery decision in In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 2005 WL 2056651 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2005), a case that had drawn intense media attention (The case currently is on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.)
Of Mice and Men: The Business Judgment Rule After The <i>Disney </i>Decision
Last month, we discussed the Delaware Court of Chancery decision in <i>In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation</i>, 2005 WL 2056651 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2005), a case that had drawn intense media attention (The case currently is on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.) We noted that the severance package given Disney president Michael Ovitz amounted to approximately $140 million in cash and vested stock options, which was paid to Ovitz upon the termination of his employment under a "no-fault" termination provision in his employment agreement. The court found that no Disney board member was liable for violating his or her fiduciary duties with respect to the hiring, and then the firing after a little more than 1 year, of Michael Ovitz. Now the question is: What has been learned? We continue the article with a discussion of fiduciary conduct.
By
David L. Finkelman and David I. SchultzThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
