Lexplug logoLexplug

Stone v. Ritter

Supreme Court of Delaware
911 A.2d 362 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Director oversight liability under Delaware law requires a showing of bad faith, which is established when directors (a) utterly fail to implement any reporting or information system or controls, or (b) having implemented such a system, consciously fail to monitor its operations, thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks requiring their attention. Such a failure constitutes a breach of the duty of loyalty.


Facts:

  • AmSouth Bancorporation ('AmSouth'), a Delaware corporation, operated a wholly-owned subsidiary, AmSouth Bank.
  • In August 2000, two individuals, Louis Hamric and Victor Nance, began using an AmSouth branch to operate a fraudulent 'Ponzi' scheme.
  • AmSouth branch employees assisted Hamric and Nance by providing custodial accounts for the scheme's 'investors'.
  • During the scheme, bank employees failed to file legally required 'Suspicious Activity Reports' (SARs) related to the fraudulent transactions, as mandated by the federal Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations.
  • The scheme was discovered in March 2002, leading to federal investigations of AmSouth's compliance with banking laws.
  • In 2004, as a result of the employees' failure to file SARs, AmSouth paid a total of $50 million in fines and civil penalties to resolve government and regulatory investigations.
  • No fines, penalties, or other regulatory actions were taken against any of AmSouth's individual directors.

Procedural Posture:

  • William and Sandra Stone, shareholders of AmSouth Bancorporation, filed a derivative complaint against fifteen present and former directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the trial court).
  • The plaintiffs did not make a pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors, alleging that such a demand would have been futile.
  • The director-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to plead demand futility with particularity.
  • The Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the derivative complaint.
  • The plaintiffs-appellants, William and Sandra Stone, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Locked

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 of directors' failure to prevent underlying employee misconduct that results in corporate fines, without any evidence of board-level knowledge or 'red flags,' demonstrate a lack of good faith sufficient to establish director oversight liability and thereby excuse a shareholder's pre-suit demand in a derivative action?


Opinions:

Majority - Holland, Justice

No. A board's failure to prevent employee misconduct does not, by itself, demonstrate the bad faith required to establish oversight liability or excuse a pre-suit demand. Director liability for a failure of oversight is predicated on a finding that the directors acted in bad faith, which is shown only where there was a sustained or systematic failure to exercise oversight, such as an utter failure to implement a reporting system or a conscious disregard of an existing one. The court formally adopted the standard from In re Caremark, holding that such claims are rooted in a breach of the duty of loyalty, not a separate duty of good faith. Here, the plaintiffs' own complaint, by incorporating the KPMG Report, showed that AmSouth's board had implemented an extensive BSA/AML compliance program, including a designated BSA Officer, a compliance department, and a committee that provided annual reports to the board. Although this system failed to prevent the illegal conduct, its existence negates the claim that the directors 'utterly failed' to exercise their oversight duties. Equating a bad corporate outcome with bad faith directorial conduct is a logical fallacy; the proper standard is whether the directors made a good faith effort to have a reasonable information and reporting system in place.



Analysis:

This landmark decision solidifies the standard for director oversight liability by formally adopting the Caremark test into Delaware Supreme Court precedent. The ruling clarifies that a failure to act in good faith is not an independent fiduciary duty but rather a breach of the duty of loyalty, thereby shielding directors from liability unless their conduct is non-exculpable under a Section 102(b)(7) provision. By setting an extremely high bar for plaintiffs—requiring proof of a conscious disregard of duty or a complete failure to implement controls—the decision significantly strengthens the business judgment rule's protection for directors. It makes 'Caremark claims' one of the most difficult theories for derivative plaintiffs to pursue, especially in the absence of clear 'red flags' showing the board knowingly ignored wrongdoing.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Stone v. Ritter (2006)

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