Freedman v. Adams
Delaware Supreme Court
58 A.3d 414 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that compensation a corporation pays to its officers in excess of $1 million each year is tax deductible for the corporation if the compensation is paid pursuant to a qualified § 162(m) plan. The board of directors of XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) knew of the availability of a § 162(m) plan, but had decided that its compensation decisions should not be constrained by such a plan: “the [compensation] committee does not believe that compensation decisions should be constrained necessarily by how much compensation is deductible for federal tax purposes, and the committee is not limited to paying compensation under plans that are qualified under Section 162(m).” As a result, over a period of three years, XTO paid its officers in excess of $130 million, but none of those payments were tax deductible for XTO. Shareholder Susan Freedman (plaintiff) brought a shareholder derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, claiming that the XTO board committed waste by not adopting a § 162(m) plan. Freedman claimed that XTO could have saved $40 million if the bonuses paid over this time period were tax deductible. The trial court ruled against Freedman. Freedman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Berger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
