In the Matter of Stephen J. Easterbrook and McDonald’s Corporation
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Exchange Act Release No. 11144 (2023)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
McDonald’s Corporation (McDonald’s) (defendant), a public company, initiated an internal investigation following allegations that its chief executive officer, Stephen J. Easterbrook (defendant), had an inappropriate personal relationship with a McDonald’s employee. Easterbrook initially denied any misconduct but later admitted to having a consensual relationship with the employee in violation of company policy. McDonald’s and Easterbrook entered into an employment-separation agreement providing that Easterbrook was terminated without cause, thereby allowing Easterbrook to receive a postseparation compensation package subject to shareholder approval. Thereafter, McDonald’s learned that Easterbrook had had improper relationships with other employees. McDonald’s filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of the separation agreement without disclosing Easterbrook’s other improper relationships. The improper relationships would have constituted grounds for terminating Easterbrook’s employment with cause and would have required Easterbrook to forfeit the compensation package. The SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against McDonald’s and Easterbrook.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.