Grimes v. Donald
Delaware Supreme Court
673 A.2d 1207 (1996)
- Written by Max Milstein, JD
Facts
The board of directors of DSC Communications (DSC) (defendant) approved contracts with DSC’s CEO, James Donald (defendant), that promised him employment until his seventy-fifth birthday. The contracts provided that if Donald lost his job without cause, he would be entitled to the same salary he would have earned until the contracts would otherwise have expired. The contracts also included further incentive bonuses, lifetime medical coverage for Donald and his family, and other benefits. Grimes (plaintiff) demanded that the board abrogate the contracts with Donald. The board refused. Grimes filed a suit alleging that the board abdicated its responsibility to oversee the management of the company. Grimes alleged that by granting Donald contracts that allowed him to collect compensation even if the board chose to reject the course of action he chooses as CEO, the board had given up its responsibility to oversee the future of DSC. Additionally, Grimes alleged that the contracts constituted waste and excessive compensation and were the product of the board's failure to exercise due care. Although Grimes did not raise these issues in his demand to the board, he claimed that demand was excused because it would have been futile. The chancery court dismissed Grimes’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Grimes appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Veasey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
