Protection Status
From our private database of 15,400+ case briefs...

In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation

Delaware Supreme Court
906 A.2d 27 (Del. June 8, 2006)


Michael Ovitz was hired as the president of The Walt Disney Company (Disney). Ovitz was a much respected and well known executive, and in convincing him to leave his lucrative and successful job with Creative Artists Agency (CAA), Disney signed Ovitz to a very lucrative contract. The contract was for five years, but if Ovitz were terminated without cause, he would be paid the remaining value of his contract as well as a significant severance package in the form of stock option payouts. The contract was approved by Disney’s compensation committee after its consideration of term sheets and other documents indicating the total possible payout to Ovitz if he was fired without cause. The compensation committee then informed Disney’s board of directors of the provisions of the contract, including the total possible payout to Ovitz. The board approved the contract and elected Ovitz as president. After Ovitz’s first year on the job, it was clear that he was not working out as president and that he was “a poor fit with his fellow executives.” However, Disney’s CEO and attorneys could not find a way to fire him for any cause, so Disney instead fired him without cause, triggering the severance package in the contract. Ovitz ended up being paid $130 million upon his termination. Disney shareholders (plaintiffs) brought derivative suits against Disney’s directors for failure to exercise due care and good faith in approving the contract and in hiring Ovitz, and, even if the contract was valid, for breaching their fiduciary duties by actually making the exorbitant severance payout to Ovitz. The Delaware Court of Chancery found that although the process of hiring Ovitz and the resulting contract did not constitute corporate “best practices,” the Disney directors did not breach any fiduciary duty to the corporation. The Disney shareholders appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 310,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 15,400 briefs, keyed to 210 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.