AmerisourceBergen Corporation v. Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund
Delaware Supreme Court
243 A.3d 417 (2020)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
AmerisourceBergen Corporation (defendant) was a major opioid distributor in the United States. The license of AmerisourceBergen’s distribution center in Orlando, Florida, was suspended by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for failure to properly maintain its controls pursuant to federal law. AmerisourceBergen and the DEA settled. However, AmerisourceBergen continued to be investigated and sued by various entities. AmerisourceBergen paid over $1 billion for expenses related to opioid lawsuits and investigations and was expected to pay $100 billion more in future expenses. Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund (the retirement fund) (plaintiff) served an inspection demand on AmerisourceBergen under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) § 220. The demand sought inspection of 13 categories of books and records and listed four investigatory purposes: (1) to investigate potential legal violations committed by AmerisourceBergen’s board of directors or management, (2) to gather information for potential remedies for any violations, (3) to evaluate the independence of the board of directors, and (4) to assess potential future litigation opportunities connected to any legal violations. AmerisourceBergen rejected the demand, asserting that the demand did not state a proper purpose or, in the alternative, that the request was overbroad. The retirement fund filed an action against AmerisourceBergen in the Delaware Court of Chancery and requested that the court compel AmerisourceBergen to provide the requested documents. The court of chancery ruled in favor of the retirement fund, holding that the demand stated a proper purpose for the inspection of certain board materials. AmerisourceBergen appealed, arguing that the retirement fund failed to specifically state its goals in the inspection demand and that the potential litigation referred to in the fourth investigatory purpose was barred by a procedural obstacle.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.