Alford v. Shaw
320 N.C. 465, 1987 N.C. LEXIS 2299, 358 S.E.2d 323 (1987)
Rule of Law:
A special litigation committee's decision to terminate a shareholder derivative action against corporate directors is not binding upon the courts, which must conduct an independent review of the merits to determine if dismissal or settlement serves the corporation's and its shareholders' best interests, especially where directors are accused of self-dealing.
Facts:
- Minority shareholders asserted charges of mismanagement against the controlling shareholders and a majority of the directors of All American Assurance Company (AAA).
- The AAA board of directors elected Marion G. Follín and Frank M. Parker as new board members and designated them as a special investigative committee.
- The special committee was authorized to investigate the charges and determine whether it would be in the best interest of AAA and its shareholders to initiate legal action against those implicated.
- Before the special committee completed its investigation, the minority shareholders filed a derivative action in superior court.
- The derivative complaint named the controlling shareholders of AAA and a majority of its directors as defendants.
- The complaint alleged that the defendants violated fiduciary obligations by engaging in a pattern of fraud, self-dealing, and negligent acquiescence, amounting to a “looting” of corporate assets.
- Upon completion of its investigation, the special committee filed a report recommending that the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice and that two remaining claims be settled.
Procedural Posture:
- Minority shareholders filed a derivative action in superior court against controlling shareholders and directors of All American Assurance Company (AAA).
- Based on the special litigation committee's report, defendants moved for summary judgment and approval of a settlement agreement.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and approval of settlement, ruling that the business judgment rule controlled the disposition of the case.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that corporate directors who are parties to a derivative action may not confer upon a special committee the power to bind the corporation as to the derivative litigation.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court initially heard the case and issued an opinion (318 N.C. 289, 349 S.E. 2d 41 (1986)) which stated that the "business judgment rule" required deference to the decisions of independent special litigation committees, and consequently held that summary judgment had been properly granted for defendants.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court subsequently elected to reconsider its prior holding and granted a rehearing on the issue raised by the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a special litigation committee’s decision to terminate a shareholder derivative action against corporate directors bind the courts, precluding independent judicial review of the merits of the committee’s recommendations?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, Justice
No, a special litigation committee's decision to terminate a shareholder derivative action against corporate directors does not bind the courts, and courts must conduct an independent review of the merits of the committee's recommendations. The Court withdraws its prior decision in this case and rejects the Auerbach rule, which limited judicial review to the committee's good faith, independence, and the sufficiency of its investigation. Instead, the Court adopts a modified Zapata rule, requiring judicial scrutiny of the merits of the special litigation committee's recommendation, as it is most consistent with the intent of the North Carolina Business Corporation Act. Specifically, N.C.G.S. § 55-55(c) mandates thorough judicial review, stating that a derivative action “shall not be discontinued, dismissed, compromised or settled without the approval of the court,” thereby requiring a substantive evaluation of the proposed action's effect on shareholder interests. To rely blindly on a corporation-appointed committee's report would abdicate this judicial duty, particularly when serious breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged. When N.C.G.S. §§ 55-55 and 55-30(b)(3) are read together, they indicate that in cases alleging self-dealing by a majority of the board, the burden is on the defendant directors to establish that the challenged transactions were “just and reasonable” to the corporation. While the committee's recommendation carries weight, it is not binding; the court must make a “fair assessment of the report... along with all the other facts and circumstances.” The Court also clarifies that this judicial inquiry applies to all derivative suits, not just those where demand upon the corporation is excused, finding no statutory basis for such a limitation.
Dissenting - Meyer, Justice
Yes, a special litigation committee's decision to terminate a shareholder derivative action against corporate directors should be binding upon the courts under the principles outlined in the Court's original opinion. Justice Meyer dissented, stating that his position is accurately reflected in the Court's original opinion, which had applied a modified Auerbach rule, thereby upholding the trial court's grant of summary judgment based on the business judgment rule and the special committee's decision.
Dissenting - Webb, Justice
No (implicitly, in that the court should not be reconsidering its prior decision), a special litigation committee's decision to terminate a shareholder derivative action against corporate directors, as previously decided by this Court, should not be disturbed. Justice Webb dissented, stating that while he did not disagree with the substantive matter in the majority opinion (implying potential agreement with the Zapata approach), he believed the Court was mistaken in changing an opinion so recently filed and voted against reconsidering the case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the protection of minority shareholder rights in North Carolina by rejecting a purely deferential approach to corporate special litigation committees. By requiring independent judicial scrutiny of the merits, the court provides a crucial check against potential corporate self-dealing and structural bias, even when a committee is ostensibly independent and acting in good faith. This ruling places a higher evidentiary burden on interested directors to justify transactions challenged in derivative suits, ensuring that courts play an active role in safeguarding the corporation's and its shareholders' best interests. The adoption of a modified Zapata standard aligns North Carolina with a national trend towards more robust judicial oversight in derivative litigation, enhancing accountability for corporate fiduciaries.
