Laborers’ Local # 231 Pension Fund v. Intersil Corp.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
868 F. Supp. 2d 838, 2012 WL 762319 (2012)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Delaware corporation Intersil Corp. (defendant) hired Compensia Inc. (defendant) to assist Intersil’s board (defendant) in determining executive pay for 2010. In March 2011, Intersil’s board recommended that Intersil’s shareholders approve an executive-compensation plan that raised executive pay by an average of 41.7 percent. In a nonbinding shareholder vote, 56 percent of Intersil’s shareholders rejected the compensation plan. In August 2011, Intersil shareholder Laborers’ Local # 231 Pension Fund (Laborers’ Local) (plaintiff) brought a shareholders’ derivative suit on Intersil’s behalf against Intersil executives and directors (defendants), alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Laborers’ Local claimed that the compensation plan was excessive, irrational, and unreasonable because Intersil’s 2010 net income had declined substantially while the board sought to increase executive compensation. Laborers’ Local also asserted a claim against Compensia for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Laborers’ Local did not make a presuit demand on Intersil’s board before filing the derivative action, instead alleging that demand would have been futile because (1) the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching its duty of loyalty and (2) the shareholders’ no vote on the compensation plan meant that the board’s decision was not entitled to the protection of the business-judgment rule. Intersil, Compensia, and the Intersil executives and directors moved to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davila, J.)
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.