Miller v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc.

361 F. Supp 2d 470 (2005)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
M
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Miller v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland
361 F. Supp 2d 470 (2005)

  • Written by John Caddell, JD

Facts

James Miller (plaintiff) was President, Chairman, and CEO of United States Foodservice, Inc. (USF) (defendant), and also served as a director of USF’s parent company, Koninklijke Ahold N.V. (Royal Ahold) (defendant). In July 2000, Miller received a letter from USF’s external auditor Deloitte & Touche stating that USF’s internal accounting controls were problematic. In 2003, Miller was forced to resign all his positions amid an accounting scandal. An internal investigation revealed irregularities and Royal Ahold had to revise downward and restate its earnings for the previous year. After resigning, Miller sued USF and Royal Ahold, seeking post-termination benefits he alleged he was entitled to according to his employment contract. USF and Royal Ahold countersued, alleging that Miller had breached his duties of care, good faith, and loyalty to the corporations, and that he was therefore not entitled to the benefits. The companies claimed that Miller had failed to implement proper internal systems despite warning signs, and that he intentionally misled USF’s audit committee for three years. Miller argued that he was being scapegoated. He moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds that his actions were protected by the business judgment rule.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Blake, 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 805,000 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 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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

Casebooks

Business Associations

Key Terms