Litigation involving Plans, Awards, and Shareholder Approval
Backdated Award as Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Board / Code 162(m) Shareholder Litigation
2015.Jun.19 Stock Plan Award Limits Violated but Award Rescinded - 9th Circuit Tosses Shareholders Challenge. Quiksilver stumbled by increasing plan award limits in 2012 without shareholder approval. But the company rescinded awards made pursuant to that amendment, and thereafter made proper awards under a shareholder-approved 2013 plan. The 9th Circuit dismissed an associated shareholder derivative action, finding the complaint moot and sensing that the lawsuit was only for fees. See Stockman v. McKnight, 9th Cir.
2013.Jan.2 Stock Plan Award Limits: Shareholders Challenge Mindspeed Tech. While it is common for stock plans to impose per-person limits on award amounts, it is rare to see litigation asserting violations. That has occurred with respect to Mindspeed Technologies, with its board members being struck with claims they breached fiduciary duties by making CEO awards in excess of plan limits.
Performance Awards - Failure to Make.
See Complaint (6/21/2011) for Freedman v. Bruch action in NY County, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty based on the board's failure to make performance goals within the purview of the purpose stated in its shareholder-approved stock plans.
Shareholder Approval and Code Section 162(m) Claims
2013.Jul.02 Code 162(m) Litigation Again Avoids Dismissal
A Delaware court has again rejected Qualcomm's effort to dismiss shareholder derivative litigation alleging the company's proxy statement was either false or misleading in representing that shareholder approval would allow plan awards to qualify for an exemption from Code §162(m). Qualcomm relied on a new development to argue for dismissal, perhaps encouraged because the prior court order described the motion as presenting "a close call." Qualcomm's new evidence took the form of an "Issue Resolution Agreement" in which the IRS agreed that Qualcomm's 2011 LTIP satisfied Code§162(m)'s requirements for the making of exempt awards. The court nevertheless declined to dismiss the case because the IRS agreement was not final and binding, and therefore became an evidentiary item as opposed to being dispositive.
2013.Jan.14 Code §162(m) Claims Resoundingly Dismissed - DE Supreme Court. "The decision to sacrifice some tax savings in order to retain flexibility in compensation decisions is a classic exercise of business judgment." So holds Delaware's Supreme Court in Freedman v. Adams. Despite this dismissal of another §162(m)-based action, employers should be mindful of three points.
2012.Aug.21 Code §162(m) Claims -- One Dismissed (vs. AK Steel); Others Rise (vs. Caterpillar and Viacom) . Applying Delaware corporate law, a federal district court in Delaware dismissed claims that directors of AK Steel breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a proxy statement's proposal for approval of stock plans intended to allow for performance-based awards that could qualify for an exemption from Code §162(m).
>>> One day earlier, Law 360 reported the lawsuit with the headline "$37M Viacom Investor Suit Likely To Flop Despite Novel Tactic". Claims of this kind have been springing from proxy statements when stock plan proposals suggest inadvertently that all awards "will" qualify -- rather than "may" qualify -- for Code §162(m)'s exemption for performance-based compensation.
2012.Mar.30 DE Chancery Dismisses Broad Range of 162(m) Claims; Denies Fee Award. In Freedman v. Adams, a shareholder brought derivative claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and waste due to the failure of XTO Energy's board to structure over $40 million of executive bonuses in a manner that would be deductible under Code Se §162(m). The Court's decision resoundingly rejects several fiduciary breach and waste claims relating to Code Section 162(m), with two of many notable quotations being:
2012.Feb.9 Allergan's ex-CEO dismissed from litigation alleging material mis-statements in proxy statement re Code 162(m) compliance invalidates shareholder approval of stock plan. See New Jersey Building Laborers Pension Fund v. Ball et al., case number 1:11-cv-01153, U.S. District Court, Delaware.
2011.Aug.4 Copy-cat Shareholder Litigation ... Stock Plan Approval Challenged due to Code §162(m) Description. ConocoPhillips has become the latest target of vexatious shareholder derivative litigation that seeks to invalidate shareholder approval of a new (or amended) stock award plan. Each of these actions argues, unpersuasively, that the underlying proxy statement mis-stated how Code §162(m)'s tax deduction rules would apply to plan awards. See Harvard Blog (2011.Sept.7).
2011.July.1 Qualcomm faced the first of these actions, with its motion to dismiss being denied in Hoch v. Alexander (D.De, 7/1/2011), holding that "The parties dispute, among other things, whether certain treasury regulations apply as well as the meaning of the Proxy Statement. But at this stage, Hoch has properly pled that a material misstatement interfered with the voting rights of shareholders and that the false proxy statement breached Defendants' duties of loyalty and good faith and constituted waste. See Resnik, 2011 WL 1184739, at *12-13."
2011.Mar.30 In Seinfeld v. O'Connor, Delaware's District Court dismissed a shareholder derivative action claiming that the 2009 proxy statement for Republic Services contained false or misleading statements in connection with an annual incentive plan's conformity with Code §162(m). The court's decision states that --
(i) "it is plain that the proxy statement does not say what Seinfeld alleges. It does not assert that the EIP will be tax-deductible, only that it is intended to be deductible under IRC § 162(m)" (page 7 of PDF), and
(ii) "The regulation contemplates the kind of 'menu-plan' of possible performance measures and goals that Republic used here."Spring-loading Award as Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Board:
In re Tyson Foods (Del.Ch. 2007) - springloading re stock option grants just before positive public announcement.
Strict Enforcement of Plan Terms:
'Sanders v Wang': Why Drafting is Important (commentaries by Bachelder, NY Law Journal, 8/30/2000) -- Stock plan's omission of an anti-dilution adjustment provision for outstanding awards resulted in invalidating such adjustments. Sanders v. Wang (Del.Ch., 1999 Lexis 203, 11/8/99).
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.