Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Drennen
Texas Supreme Court
452 S.W.3d 319 (2014)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
William Drennen, III (plaintiff) worked for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) (defendant) for over 30 years, primarily in Houston but also in New York for 10 years. Exxon was incorporated in New Jersey and headquartered in Texas. Drennen received deferred delivery of Exxon stock, traded on the New York Stock Exchange, as incentive compensation. The incentive-compensation contract permitted Exxon to terminate the stock’s delivery if Drennen engaged in detrimental activity, including accepting duties with an entity that competed with Exxon. The contract, executed in Texas, contained a New York choice-of-law clause. New York law was selected for consistency because Exxon employed people in many states and countries, New York had a well-developed and clearly defined body of law governing employee stock and incentive programs, and New York was the routine choice for securities-related contracts because it was home to the New York Stock Exchange. In 2006 Drennen resigned and accepted a position with another large energy company. Exxon invoked the detrimental-activity provision of the contract and canceled Drennen’s outstanding stock, valued at $5 million. Drennen sued for breach of contract in Texas state court, arguing that under Texas law, the detrimental-activity provision was unenforceable. The trial court applied New York law and held the provision was enforceable, but the appellate court held that Texas law applied and Drennen was entitled to the stock. Exxon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Green, 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.