CA, Inc. v. AFSCME Employees Pension Plan case brief summary
953 A.2d 227 (2008)
CASE FACTS
The bylaw directed the board to reimbursement proxy expenses. The current bylaws and certificate of incorporation did not address the issue, but the certificate tracked Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(a).
ISSUE
The certified question, the first the SEC submitted under the amended constitution, sought a determination of whether the bylaw was a proper subject for stockholder action and whether any law would be violated if the bylaw were adopted.
DISCUSSION
The court answered the certified questions in the affirmative.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
953 A.2d 227 (2008)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant Delaware corporation sought a
no-action letter from the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), under 17 C.F.R. § 240-14a-8, claiming that a
bylaw proposed by appellee stockholder was not a proper subject for
shareholder action. General counsel for the stockholder opined that
the proposed bylaw was a proper subject. The SEC certified two
questions pursuant to Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(8) and
Del. Sup. Ct. R. 41.CASE FACTS
The bylaw directed the board to reimbursement proxy expenses. The current bylaws and certificate of incorporation did not address the issue, but the certificate tracked Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(a).
ISSUE
The certified question, the first the SEC submitted under the amended constitution, sought a determination of whether the bylaw was a proper subject for stockholder action and whether any law would be violated if the bylaw were adopted.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that both the board and the shareholders, independently and concurrently, had the power to adopt, amend and repeal the bylaws; and that shareholders' statutory power to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws was not coextensive with the board's concurrent power and was limited by the board's management prerogatives under § 141(a).
- The court concluded that the bylaw fell within the scope of Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 109 and was a proper matter for stockholder action, but that the bylaw, as drafted, violated the prohibition derived from § 141(a) against contractual arrangements that committed a board to a course of action that would preclude them from fully discharging their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders.
The court answered the certified questions in the affirmative.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment