City of Birmingham Retirement & Relief System v. Good
177 A.3d 47 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish director oversight liability under a Caremark claim, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts showing bad faith, which requires demonstrating that the directors completely failed to implement any reporting or control systems, or having implemented such a system, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations. A board's awareness of problems, coupled with its reliance on management reports detailing remedial efforts, negates an inference of conscious disregard or bad faith at the pleading stage.
Facts:
- Duke Energy Corporation, a large electricity provider, generates a toxic byproduct called coal ash, which it stores in unlined ponds adjacent to rivers.
- In 2013, several environmental groups filed a notice of intent to sue Duke Energy under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for unpermitted seepages of coal ash into groundwater.
- In response, the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) initiated its own enforcement action against Duke Energy, which, under the CWA, preempted the citizen suits.
- Duke Energy and DENR negotiated a consent decree that would have imposed a $99,000 fine and required the creation of a future compliance schedule to address the violations.
- In 2011 and 2012, a station manager at Duke's Dan River facility recommended camera inspections for a stormwater pipe beneath a coal ash pond, but the inspections were never performed.
- On February 2, 2014, the uninspected stormwater pipe at the Dan River Steam Station ruptured, releasing 27 million gallons of toxic coal ash slurry into the Dan River.
- Subsequent investigations revealed that a camera inspection would likely have discovered the pipe's corrosion, and the spill could have been prevented.
- Following the spill, Duke Energy's subsidiaries pled guilty to nine negligence-based misdemeanor violations of the CWA.
Procedural Posture:
- Stockholders of Duke Energy filed four separate derivative lawsuits against certain company directors and officers in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- The Court of Chancery consolidated the four actions.
- The director and officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the board as required by Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.
- The plaintiffs contended that demand was excused as futile because the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their oversight duties.
- The Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead particularized facts giving rise to a reasonable inference of bad faith.
- The plaintiff stockholders appealed the dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
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 board's reliance on management reports detailing both ongoing environmental problems and the company's remedial actions negate a pleading-stage inference of bad faith necessary to establish a substantial likelihood of personal liability for an oversight failure, thereby making a pre-suit demand on the board not futile?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, Justice
No. A board's reliance on management reports that acknowledge corporate problems but also outline remedial actions does not support a pleading-stage inference of bad faith sufficient to establish a substantial likelihood of personal liability for the directors. To prove a Caremark claim for oversight failure where directors are exculpated from due care violations, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts showing directors acted in bad faith through an intentional dereliction of duty or a conscious disregard for their responsibilities. Here, the board presentations, viewed in their entirety, show the board was not only aware of environmental problems but was also consistently informed of management's efforts to mitigate risks, monitor groundwater, and engage with regulators. These actions are inconsistent with a conscious disregard of duty. The plaintiffs' theory that Duke colluded with a 'captive' regulator is not supported by the facts; cooperating with regulators to minimize liability is a reasonable business decision, not evidence of bad faith. Ultimately, the plaintiffs improperly attempt to equate a bad outcome—the environmental disaster and subsequent fines—with bad faith on the part of the board, which, under Stone v. Ritter, is insufficient to state a claim for oversight liability.
Dissenting - Strine, Chief Justice
Yes. The pleaded facts support a rational inference that the board of directors knew of and supported a business strategy to consciously violate environmental laws while using political influence to avoid accountability, which is sufficient to establish a substantial likelihood of personal liability and excuse demand. The majority applies too high a standard at the pleading stage, which only requires a rational inference of non-exculpated wrongdoing, not conclusive proof. The pleadings allege a pattern of misconduct, including long-standing knowledge of illegal discharges, failure to obtain necessary permits, and a strategic effort to co-opt a friendly regulator to preempt more serious citizen-led lawsuits with a token fine and no remediation. Viewing the facts in the plaintiffs' favor, the board was not engaged in good-faith oversight but was complicit in a corporate strategy of flouting the law to increase profitability. Delaware law does not permit fiduciaries to be loyal to a corporation by knowingly causing it to seek profit by violating the law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely high pleading standard for director oversight liability under the Caremark doctrine. The court makes clear that for a Caremark claim to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must show a conscious disregard of duty or an utter failure of oversight, not merely that the board's oversight was flawed or ineffective. By crediting board presentations that documented problems alongside remedial efforts, the decision signals that any evidence of a functioning board-level monitoring process, however imperfect, can defeat a claim of bad faith. This makes it exceptionally difficult for shareholder plaintiffs to hold directors personally liable for corporate trauma, even in cases involving significant legal violations and financial penalties.
