lack Letter
BADelaware Supreme Court, 2006stubesbozounverifiedsin verificarSkim briefBrief rápido

In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation

906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006)

A $130 million severance for a president who lasted fourteen months

In one lineEn una línea
Directors who act in good faith and without gross negligence are protected by the business judgment rule, even when their process falls short of best practices.Los consejeros que actúan de buena fe y sin negligencia grave están protegidos por la regla del juicio empresarial, aunque su proceso no sea ejemplar.
RuleRegla
Under the business judgment rule, a court will not second-guess an informed, good-faith decision; bad faith means intentional dereliction or conscious disregard of duty, not mere poor process; the Disney directors did not breach the duty of care or act in bad faith.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
The leading modern statement of the business judgment rule and of what “bad faith” would take; the board's process was poor but not a breach.
Procedural posturePostura procesal
Shareholders sued the directors derivatively over the hiring and no-fault termination of Michael Ovitz; after trial the Court of Chancery found for the defendants; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
business judgment rulefiduciary duties (loyalty and care)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-09-01, 2026-10-29

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Skim brief from memory of the public opinion; verify facts and holding against the opinion before citing..