Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Assessing Director Independence
A recent opinion by the Delaware Supreme Court emphasizes the need for boards of directors to be aware of close interpersonal relationships between their directors and any party with a financial stake in a contemplated transaction. Indeed, the court's decision in Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund v. Sanchez, No. 702, 2014 (Del. Oct. 2, 2015), held that a director's close, personal friendship with an interested party could have the effect of “compromising a director's independence,” and found that derivative stockholder plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting a pleading-stage inference that a director lacked independence from an interested party because he had been a close friend of the interested party for over 50 years and was employed by an insurance company over which the interested party had substantial control.
Background
The derivative lawsuit in Sanchez arose out of a transaction between Sanchez Resources LLC, a private company wholly owned by A.R. Sanchez Jr. and certain of his family members, and Sanchez Energy Corp., a public corporation of which Sanchez and his family members, together, constituted the largest stockholder. As part of the transaction, Sanchez Energy agreed to pay Sanchez Resources $78 million to, among other things, purchase a private equity investor's interest in Sanchez Resources, acquire an interest in certain properties with energy-producing potential, and facilitate the production of 80,000 acres of property. The stockholder plaintiffs brought suit derivatively on behalf of Sanchez Energy, alleging that the transaction unfairly benefited Sanchez Resources to the detriment of Sanchez Energy. The plaintiffs alleged they were not required to demand that the board of directors bring suit on behalf of Sanchez Energy because such a demand was futile and therefore excused because a majority of the board of directors was interested in the transaction or lacked independence.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.