THERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 NOELLE LEE, Derivatively on Behalf of Case No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 91 1 BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. Francis A. Bottini, Jr. (SBN 175783) 2 [email protected] Albert Y. Chang (SBN 296065) 3 [email protected] Anne Beste (SBN 326881) 4 [email protected] 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 5 La Jolla, California 92037 Telephone: (858) 914‐2001 6 Facsimile: (858) 914‐2002 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Noelle Lee 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 NOELLE LEE, derivatively on behalf of Case No. _______________ 14 THE GAP, INC., Plaintiff, VERIFIED SHAREHOLDER 15 vs. DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR: 16 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ROBERT J. FISHER, SONIA SYNGAL, 2. AIDING AND ABETTING 17 ARTHUR PECK, AMY BOHUTINSKY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 18 AMY MILES, ISABELLA D. GOREN, BOB 3. ABUSE OF CONTROL; L. MARTIN, CHRIS O’NEILL, ELIZABETH 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT; AND 19 A. SMITH, JOHN J. FISHER, JORGE P. 5. VIOLATION OF SECTION 14(A) 20 MONTOYA, MAYO A. SHATTUCK III, OF THE SECURITIES TRACY GARDNER, WILLIAM S. FISHER, EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. 21 DORIS F. FISHER, and DOES 1–30, 22 Defendants, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 – and – 24 THE GAP, INC., Nominal Defendant. 25 26 27 28 SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 91 Table of Contents 1 2 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 3 II. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION ...........................................................4 4 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................12 5 IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................13 6 V. THE PARTIES ..................................................................................................................13 7 8 A. Plaintiff .................................................................................................................13 9 B. Nominal Defendant ............................................................................................13 10 C. Officer Defendants ..............................................................................................13 11 D. Director Defendants ............................................................................................14 12 E. Doe Defendants ...................................................................................................16 13 F. Unnamed Participants ........................................................................................16 14 15 VI. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ........17 16 A. Responsibilities of the Individual Defendants................................................17 17 B. Fiduciary Duties of the Individual Defendants ..............................................19 18 C. Breaches of Fiduciary Duties by the Individual Defendants ........................20 19 D. Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, and Concerted Action ............................20 20 VII. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................22 21 22 A. Gap’s CEO and Key Executive Team ...............................................................22 23 B. At All Relevant Times, the Individual Defendants Have Had Actual Knowledge that Gap Has Failed to Comply with Its Own Policies of 24 Promoting Diversity and Prohibiting Discrimination, Yet the 25 Individual Defendants Have Continued to Refuse to Nominate Black Individuals and Minorities to the Board ...............................................24 26 27 28 i SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 91 C. Background of Additional Disclosures Mandated by the SEC in 1 Proxy Statements Relating to the Process by Which Individuals Are 2 Nominated to the Boards of Directors of Publicly‐Traded Companies ...........................................................................................................28 3 4 D. False and Misleading Statements Made by the Director Defendants in Gap’s 2019 & 2020 Proxy Statements ...........................................................35 5 6 E. The Directors’ Roles and Committees at Gap .................................................60 7 F. The Director Defendants Breached Their Duties of Loyalty and Good Faith by Failing to Ensure Diversity on the Board and Among 8 Managers and Executives at the Company .....................................................61 9 G. The Unjust Compensation Awarded to the Individual Defendants ...........64 10 VIII. THE COMPANY HAS SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES .............................71 11 12 IX. DEMAND FUTILITY ......................................................................................................72 13 A. Demand Is Futile Against the Officer Defendants .........................................72 14 B. Demand is Futile as to the Fisher Family Directors Because They are 15 Controlling Shareholders and are Not Independent .....................................73 16 C. Demand Is Excused Because a Majority of the Director Defendants is Either Not Independent or is Conflicted Because These Defendants 17 Face a Substantial Likelihood of Liability Arising From Their 18 Misconduct ...........................................................................................................74 19 D. The Entire Board Faces a Substantial Likelihood of Liability for 20 Failure to Discharge Their Oversight Obligations in Good Faith ................76 21 E. Demand is Futile as to the Members of the Governance & Sustainability Committee ...................................................................................77 22 23 X. CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................................78 24 XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................84 25 26 27 28 ii SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 91 1 Plaintiff Noelle Lee (“Plaintiff”) submits this Verified Shareholder Derivative 2 Complaint against certain directors and officers of nominal defendant The Gap, Inc. 3 (“Gap” or the “Company”) for, inter alia, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 4 1934 (“Exchange Act”), breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment. In support 5 of these claims, Plaintiff alleges the following upon (1) personal knowledge with respect 6 to the matters pertaining to herself; and (2) information and belief with respect to all 7 other matters, based upon the investigations undertaken by her counsel, which include a 8 review of Gap’s legal and regulatory filings, press releases, analyst reports, and media 9 reports about the Company. Plaintiff believes that substantial additional evidentiary 10 support will exist for the allegations set forth below after a reasonable opportunity for 11 discovery. 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 “Being an inclusive company isnʹt optional. For us, striving for equality is just as much of a business imperative today as it was 50 years ago when 14 we started out. 15 We are inclusive, by design. Intentionally. Specifically. With purpose.”1 16 1. Despite its supposed “imperative” to be inclusive, Gap has failed to create 17 any meaningful diversity at the very top of the Company — the Board of Directors (the 18 “Board”). The Gap Board has lacked diversity at all relevant times, and lacks a single 19 African American director. The following are the current members of the Board: 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 1 See https://www.gapinc.com/en‐us/values/diversity‐inclusion, last visited July 27, 2020. 26 27 28 1 SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 91 1 Amy Bohutinsky Amy Miles 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Isabella D. Goren Bob L. Martin 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Chris O’Neill Elizabeth A. Smith 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 91 1 John Fisher Jorge P. Montoya 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mayo A. Shattuck III Robert J. Fisher 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sonia Syngal Tracy Gardner 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06163-SK Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 91 1 William S. Fisher Doris F. Fisher 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 10 2. Despite claiming that “We are inclusive, by design. Intentionally. 11 Specifically. With purpose,”2 Gap has failed to create any true racial or ethnic diversity 12 at the very top of the Company – on its Board of Directors and executive management 13 team. Gap’s Directors, wishing to avoid public backlash, have repeatedly made 14 misrepresentations in the Company’s public statements by claiming to have a multitude 15 of policies, internal controls, and processes designed to ensure diversity both at the 16 management level and the Board itself. 17 3. Gap also has repeatedly represented to its shareholders that it actively and 18 “aggressively” evaluates the composition of its Board to ensure compliance with not just 19 the law, but also its own stated corporate governance principles. The Company’s 20 Investor Relations website states: Gap Inc. will continue to aggressively evaluate the skill set of our board 21 against our business needs to ensure our standards not only meet the 22 requirements of the law,