Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1681726
 
 

Footnotes (126)



 


 



Gantler v. Stephens: Big Epiphany or Big Failure? A Look at the Current State of Officers' Fiduciary Duties and Advice for Potential Protection


Michael Follett


Delaware Journal of Corporate Law

September 23, 2010

Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (DJCL), Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 563, 2010

Abstract:     
The multiple corporate scandals of the early twenty-first century have recently focused much attention on the duties and liabilities of corporate officers. The Delaware Supreme Court, renowned for its corporate governance decisions, recently decided Gantler v. Stephens and held that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as corporate directors.

Before Gantler, two competing views emerged with respect to the protections courts should extend to corporate officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. One argued that officers and directors were equal fiduciaries and, therefore, courts should afford them the same business judgment presumption. Another contended that officers were agents of the corporation because they had greater responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the companies and, thus, should not be given the deferential treatment of the business judgment presumption. Gantler is important because it expressly held that officers are fiduciaries; however, the opinion left some very important questions undecided. One of those questions is whether the business judgment rule applies to officers. Another question is whether the Delaware General Assembly, through the Delaware General Corporation Law, should permit companies to exculpate officers from liability – similar to the 102(b)(7) protections available to directors.

This note argues that the business judgment rule should apply equally to officers and directors. This note does not advocate, however, that the General Assembly afford officers exculpatory protections. The business judgment rule is sufficient protection against an officer's potential liability. It will allow officers to take the necessary risks to allow their businesses to grow without having to worry about judicial second-guessing of a sound business strategy, provided, of course, that the officers exercise due diligence before engaging in potentially risky behavior. Eliminating the deterrent of potential personal liability by allowing exculpatory protections of all fiduciary duties will only induce reckless decision making, which could lead to morally hazardous situations. Finally, this note asserts that the bar for establishing what constitutes good faith conduct by directors has been set too low to allow for officer exculpation. If officers are granted these protections, they will be almost completely immune from liability.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 20

Keywords: Delaware, Journal, Corporate Law, Corporate, Gantler v. Stephens, Gantler, Stephens, 102(b)(7)

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 23, 2010 ; Last revised: January 10, 2011

Suggested Citation

Follett, Michael, Gantler v. Stephens: Big Epiphany or Big Failure? A Look at the Current State of Officers' Fiduciary Duties and Advice for Potential Protection (September 23, 2010). Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (DJCL), Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 563, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1681726

Contact Information

Michael Follett (Contact Author)
Delaware Journal of Corporate Law ( email )
Widener University School of Law
P.O. Box 7286
Wilmington, DE 19803
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,627
Downloads: 349
Download Rank: 48,361
Footnotes:  126

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.266 seconds