In re The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

2011 WL 4826104 (2011)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery
2011 WL 4826104 (2011)

Play video

Facts

The Goldman Sachs Group (Goldman) compensates employees on a “pay for performance” theory. Goldman’s management provides revenue estimates and proposes a compensation ratio to the Compensation Committee, which compares competitors’ ratios. From 2007 to 2009 Goldman’s directors (defendants) proposed compensation around 44 percent of net revenues each year, immediately after Goldman was saved from financial ruin by a government bailout. Goldman’s shareholders (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that the compensation structure encouraged employees to pursue risky investments to the detriment of shareholders. The plaintiffs claimed that employees leveraged Goldman’s assets more than competitors, because the shareholders bore the risk while earning only 2 percent of the revenue in dividends. In 2008, one group earned $9.06 billion in net revenue, but wound up losing $2.7 billion after bonuses. Goldman’s Audit Committee oversaw risk, but the plaintiffs argue that it failed. The plaintiffs claim Goldman took positions in conflict with shareholders and profited while they lost equity. The plaintiffs asked the Delaware Court of Chancery for equitable relief on the grounds that the directors breached fiduciary duties because: (1) a majority of the directors who approved the compensation plan were interested, (2) the compensation plan was not an exercise of the board’s business judgment, and (3) the approval of the plan amounted to waste. Goldman’s charter contained an exculpation provision pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Glasscock, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 747,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership