A judge ruled that Walt Disney’s board did not breach its duties in awarding a $ million severance package to Michael Ovitz. Delaware Chancellor William B Chandler III rules that Walt Disney “We always believed that there was no basis for this case,” he added. But this case was never really about money–even a worst-case scenario wouldn’t have done much damage to The Walt Disney Co., not when.
|Published (Last):||16 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||3.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.90 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Derivative LitigationA. Some suggested the ruling might spur more shareholder activism. No contracts or commitments. Not everyone will agree with my choices, but my hope is that my perspective will nonetheless provide some dizney for people working in this evolving field to understand the true complexity of corporate boards.
He noted for this reason ‘ duty of care violations are rarely found’. Ovitz, while on a boating vacation in the Mediterranean with his family, said through his lawyer that he was relieved by the decision. The board approved the contract and elected Ovitz as president.
Judge Rules in Favor of Disney in Ovitz Case but Criticizes Eisner – latimes
About the Author Jay W. On 14 August Eisner released to the press the appointment, before the compensation committee had ovtiz met to discuss it.
Easy to useuniform format for every case brief. Smith v Van Gorkom A2d Cite View Details Purchase Related. Eisner’s credibility as a witness, its repeated findings that Mr. Eisner’s stellar track record as a CEO. Finance Globalization Health Care. Guth v Loft Inc. His scores make his caxe. Pepper v Litton US 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.
Lorsch and Quinn Pitcher.
Seizure Led to FloJo’s Death. Thank you for your support!
Finance General Management Marketing. He said he rightly informed himself of all the facts, so was not grossly negligent oovitz if the behavior should not serve as a model, ‘especially at having enthroned himself as the omnipotent and infallible monarch of his personal Magic Kingdom’.
The opinion can be simplified into six main holdings: Article Annals of Corporate Governance. Sign in with Google. Poitier and Lozano were entirely uninvolved, but it was concluded that neither were grossly negligent or acted in bad faith. Cite View Details Educators Purchase. Cite View Details Educators. Lawyers for fase shareholders, who sought reimbursement of Ovitz’s payout, plus interest, vowed to appeal the decision. Both articles are available on our Web site.
Disney Affirmed: The Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies The Duty of Directors To Act In Good Faith
Are you a current sisney of? What to cawe next… Unlock this case brief with a free no-commitment trial membership of Quimbee. Cite View Details Educators Related. Eisner at all times acted in good faith consistent with his fiduciary duties, and its explicit recognition of Mr.
The best way for me to establish this argument is to trace the history of research on corporate boards and analyze the trends in that research, including the relative value of the types of data that researchers in this field have used. Ovitz was a near-mythical figure then, frequently dubbed Hollywood’s ocitz powerful executive because he controlled a vast amount of talent as head of Creative Artists Agency.