Freedman v. Adams

58 A.3d 414 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a stockholder of XTO Energy Inc. P filed a derivative action alleging that D's board committed waste by failing to adopt a plan that could have made its bonus payments tax deductible. Compensation awarded to corporate officers in excess of $1 million per year is tax deductible only if paid pursuant to §162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. From 2004 - 2007, D paid executive bonuses totaling more than $130 million, and those payments were not tax deductible. The D board was aware that, under a qualified Section 162(m) plan, bonuses could be tax deductible, but it did not think its compensation decisions should be 'constrained' by such a plan. Shortly after P filed her complaint, D's board approved a Section 162(m) plan which was also approved by its stockholders. D never made use of the plan because it merged with and into a subsidiary of Exxon on June 25, 2010. P agreed to dismiss her complaint, as moot but she then filed a motion seeking $1 million in attorneys' fees, arguing that the complaint benefitted the company by causing D to adopt a Section 162(m) plan. The Court denied the motion. P appealed.