Minnesota Law Review

Note, The Problem with Waste: Delaware’s Lenient Treatment of Waste Claims at the Demand Stage of Derivative Litigation

The Note addresses the Delaware courts’ treatment of waste claims at the demand stage of derivative litigation. Recent Delaware opinions indicate that waste is part of the fiduciary duty of good faith. This means that directors are not protected from claims of waste by section 102(b)(7) exculpation clauses in their corporations’ certificates of incorporation. Additionally, the Delaware courts consistently describe waste as the most difficult claim of a violation of a director’s fiduciary duties for plaintiffs to succeed with at trial. Nonetheless, the courts do not universally require waste claims to contain particularized factual allegations at the demand stage. The Delaware courts’ placement of waste under good faith and their lenient approach to waste claims at the demand stage create an opening for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs can currently bypass the exculpation clause protection for directors and succeed in claiming demand futility if they bring a claim of waste, even if the claim contains only minimal factual support.

The Note argues that the Delaware courts should explicitly place waste under the duty of good faith, thereby making waste a nonexculpable claim. To preserve the viability of the demand stage of derivative litigation, the courts should also require particularized factual allegations for claims of waste when determining demand futility. This treatment will maintain the directors’ authority to manage their corporations, allow shareholders to hold directors accountable for irrational business decisions, and potentially alter the corporate culture that contrib­uted to the recent economic crisis.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]