Beard v. Elster

Supreme Court of Delaware
160 A.2d 731 (1960)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A stock option plan approved by a disinterested and independent board of directors is valid if the plan or surrounding circumstances provide a reasonable expectation that the corporation will receive the contemplated benefits, such as the retention of employee services. In such cases, the board's decision is protected by the business judgment rule and will not be overturned by a court unless the terms amount to corporate waste.

Facts:

In 1950, American Airlines, Inc.'s Board of Directors proposed a restricted stock option plan for key employees, stating that it would furnish added incentives.
The sixteen-member Board that approved the plan was disinterested, with the exception of two members who later received options under the plan.
A committee of disinterested directors was formed to grant the options to eligible employees.
The company's stockholders approved the initial plan in 1950 and a subsequent allocation of remaining shares in 1951.
The options were exercisable at any time before June 1, 1955, but only if the optionee was still employed by American Airlines at the time of exercise.
It was known that comparable salaries at American Airlines were below average for corporations of its size, and the announcement of the plan acted as an inducement for employees to remain with the company.
After the plan was implemented, the great majority of employees who exercised their options remained in the company's employ.

Procedural Posture:

Shareholder William Elster sued American Airlines, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking cancellation of the company's stock option plans.
The Vice-Chancellor ruled that the individual employee-optionees were indispensable parties and they were subsequently added as defendants.
The defendant-optionees moved for summary judgment in their favor.
The Vice-Chancellor denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that under the precedent of Kerbs v. California Eastern Airways, the options were invalid gifts of corporate assets due to a lack of consideration.
The individual defendant-optionees appealed the denial of their summary judgment motion to the Supreme Court of Delaware.

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 stock option plan, approved by a disinterested board of directors and ratified by shareholders, constitute an invalid gift of corporate assets for lack of consideration where the options are exercisable immediately, provided the optionee is an employee at the time of exercise?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Wolcott

No, the stock option plan does not constitute an invalid gift of corporate assets. A plan approved by a disinterested board is protected by the business judgment rule if it contains conditions that ensure the corporation may reasonably expect to receive the contemplated benefit. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents like Kerbs v. California Eastern Airways and Gottlieb v. Heyden Chemical Corp., where the option plans were adopted by interested boards of directors. In those cases, the absence of the business judgment rule required strict judicial scrutiny of the transaction's fairness. Here, the plan was adopted by an independent and disinterested board, whose judgment is entitled to great deference. The requirement that an optionee be employed by the corporation at the time of exercise was a sufficient condition to reasonably ensure that the corporation would receive the benefit of retaining valued employees. Since reasonable businesspeople could differ on the wisdom of such a plan, the court is precluded from substituting its own judgment for that of the disinterested board.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the standard of review for stock option plans in Delaware, creating a crucial distinction based on board independence. It establishes that when a disinterested and independent board approves an option plan, the highly deferential business judgment rule applies, insulating the board's decision from judicial second-guessing unless it constitutes waste. This decision tempered the stricter scrutiny applied in earlier cases like Kerbs and Gottlieb, which involved self-dealing directors, thereby creating a safe harbor for corporations to implement employee retention plans without fear of automatic invalidation. It solidified the principle that the key factor in the legal analysis is the independence of the fiduciaries making the decision.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Beard v. Elster (1960)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"