Beam ex rel. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. v. Stewart
Delaware Supreme Court
845 A.2d 1040 (2004)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Monica Beam (plaintiff) was a shareholder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSO) (plaintiff). Beam filed a derivative action on behalf of MSO against Martha Stewart (defendant), alleging breaches of Stewart’s fiduciary duties of loyalty and care for illegally selling ImClone stock and mishandling the media attention that followed. In violation of Delaware Chancery Rule 23.1, Beam did not demand that MSO’s board of directors file the lawsuit prior to filing the lawsuit herself. However, Beam alleged that any presuit demand would have been futile because a majority of the board members were not disinterested in the litigation. Specifically, Beam alleged that five of MSO’s six board members were personally interested in the litigation against Stewart: Stewart, Sharon Patrick, Arthur Martinez, Darla Moore, and Naomi Seligman. Patrick was an inside director and MSO officer, and she received significant compensation from MSO. Martinez and Moore were longstanding friends of Stewart. Seligman had called a publishing house to try to stop a book that was critical of Stewart. MSO moved to dismiss based on Beam’s failure to make a presuit demand on MSO’s board of directors. The Court of Chancery determined that Beam had not shown that a presuit demand would have been futile and dismissed the claim. Beam appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Veasey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
