Sutherland v. Sutherland
2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 49, 2008 WL 1932374, 958 A.2d 235 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A special litigation committee (SLC) seeking to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit must prove its independence, good faith, and the reasonableness of its investigation. An investigation is not conducted in good faith or reasonably when the SLC's report omits analysis of significant, suspicious transactions that are central to the complaint while including minor, exculpatory details.
Facts:
- Dardanelle Timber Company is a family-owned corporation where four siblings—Martha, Dwight Jr., Perry, and Todd Sutherland—each own 25% of the common stock.
- After the death of their father, brothers Perry and Todd gained voting control of the company through a trust, constituting a majority of the board and serving as principal officers.
- Martha Sutherland alleged that Perry and Todd used corporate assets for personal benefit, including personal flights on the company plane, personal tax and accounting services, and vacations.
- Central to the allegations were two payments made by Dardanelle in 2000 and 2001, totaling $95,950, to a contractor named Leo King for improvements to Perry's personal residence.
- Martha also alleged that employment agreements approved by the board for Perry and Todd constituted corporate waste and a breach of fiduciary duty.
Procedural Posture:
- Martha Sutherland, a shareholder, filed a derivative and double derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of Dardanelle Timber Company and its subsidiary.
- The complaint named her brothers, Perry and Todd Sutherland, and a cousin, Mark Sutherland, as individual defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste.
- In response, the companies' boards of directors appointed Bryan Jeffrey as a one-member Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate the claims.
- After its investigation, the SLC issued a report concluding that pursuing the litigation was not in the companies' best interests.
- Based on the SLC's report, the defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss Martha Sutherland's complaint.
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 one-member special litigation committee meet its burden of proving its good faith and the reasonableness of its investigation when its report omits any analysis of significant payments central to the plaintiff's claims, its interview summaries are perfunctory, and its financial review is superficial?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamb, Vice Chancellor
No. A special litigation committee fails to meet its burden to show good faith and a reasonable investigation when its process is critically flawed. Applying the two-step framework from Zapata v. Maldonado, the court first assessed the Special Litigation Committee's (SLC) independence, good faith, and reasonableness. While the court found the sole member of the SLC, Bryan Jeffrey, to be independent despite minor prior relationships, it concluded that the SLC failed to carry its burden on the second and third prongs. The investigation was fatally undermined by three key deficiencies: 1) The SLC report completely omitted any mention or analysis of the $95,950 in payments to Leo King for work on Perry's home, a central allegation, while including minor exculpatory information from the same period, which raised significant questions about the SLC's good faith. 2) The interview summaries, particularly of key defendant Perry, were perfunctory, merely listing topics without recording any substantive answers, making it impossible for the court to review the investigation's adequacy. 3) The SLC's review of the company's general ledgers for personal expenses was 'desultory,' lacking a plan, proper documentation, or methods capable of detecting payments to third parties on behalf of the defendants. These collective failures demonstrated that the investigation was not reasonable and was not conducted in good faith, requiring the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical application of the Zapata standard, emphasizing that a special litigation committee's investigation must be both substantively and procedurally sound. It clarifies that even if an SLC member is deemed independent, a court will meticulously scrutinize the thoroughness and objectivity of the investigation itself. The opinion serves as a strong warning that SLCs cannot selectively investigate, omit inconvenient facts from their reports, or conduct superficial reviews, especially in closely held corporations where the interests of controlling and minority shareholders are sharply divided. This reinforces the court's role as a gatekeeper to ensure that the SLC process is not merely a tool for entrenched management to dismiss meritorious derivative suits.
Unlock the full brief for Sutherland v. Sutherland