Newsletter

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Derivative Action Alleging Directors Improperly Failed to Stop or Sanction Corporate CEO’s Alleged Sexual Misconduct

December 2001

In a case involving underlying allegations that a high-profile corporate CEO sexually harassed various female employees, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a derivative suit against ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("ICN") and its directors, holding that the complaint did not contain sufficiently particularized allegations to create a reasonable doubt that demand on the board was excused because the directors were not disinterested and independent or their decisions were not protected by the business judgment rule. White v. Panic, 2001 WL 1191452 (Del. Oct. 3, 2001) (en banc).

According to the complaint, several female ICN employees had filed suit against the company alleging that Milan Panic, ICN's founder and CEO and the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia from 1992 to 1993, had sexually harassed them. The complaint, which was based primarily on an article published in a national news magazine, further alleged that ICN had paid a combined $3.5 million to settle eight different harassment suits against Panic. Plaintiff claimed that ICN's directors were aware of Panic's asserted misconduct for many years, but protected him by using company funds to settle the claims, failed to sanction him for his misconduct, and never required him to reimburse the company for the cost of settling the suits. Plaintiff also alleged that the directors approved a short-term loan to Panic to permit him to pay a $3.5 million settlement in a paternity suit, then guaranteed a bank loan to replace the short-term loan. In return, Panic pledged 150,000 of his personal ICN stock options.

Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Court of Chancery without making a pre-suit demand on the company's board. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that plaintiff had failed to show demand was futile and thus excused. The Court of Chancery ruled that demand was not excused because the complaint failed to raise a reasonable doubt that the directors were disinterested or that their actions were the protected by the business judgment rule. Accordingly, the Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. As the court recognized, "[t]he decision to approve a settlement is entitled to the same presumption of good faith as other business decisions taken by a disinterested, independent board. Similarly, the board's decision not to seek contribution from persons involved in the conduct underlying a suit against the corporation is a business decision within the discretion of the board." Although the court noted that the directors were aware of the suits against Panic and approved the settlement of the claims, these facts alone did not show that the directors knew the claims had merit or that Panic had engaged in the alleged misconduct. The court also determined that the allegations did not show that the directors had intentionally decided not to sanction Panic or not take measures to stop future misconduct. Thus, since the complaint failed to allege, inter alia, the board's assessment of the claims, the amount of alleged damages in each case, and the amount of each purported settlement, the court held that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege that the board's decisions were "anything other than routine business decisions in the interests of the corporation." Finally, the court held that the decision to guarantee a loan to Panic, who provided collateral in the form of stock options, was not so one-sided as to constitute corporate waste.

Read Time: 3 min
Jump to top of page

Wiley Rein LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek