Litigation
Delaware Court of Chancery Decides Disney/Ovitz Compensation Case In Favor Of All Director Defendants
“Times may change, but fiduciary duties do not.” Chancellor Chandler, In re The Walt Disney Co. Deriv. Litig., Consolidated C.A. No. 15452, slip op. at 3 (del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2005)
On August 9, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its decision in the seminal Disney/Ovitz compensation case, In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation, In the end, the Disney case concluding that the defendant directors and officers of The Walt Disney Company did not violate their fiduciary duties when they hired Chief Operating Officer Michael Ovitz nearly ten broke little new legal ground: years ago and then fired him a little over one year later.
the considerations undertaken The closely-watched case has provided years of fodder for court-watchers and Hollywood- watchers alike, especially given the personalities involved and the enormity of the estimated by Disney’s senior officers and $140 million severance package paid to Ovitz after his stunted tenure. In the end, Chancellor
Board in the hiring and firing of Chandler concluded: breaches of duty are determined on a director-by-director basis, as opposed to viewing Ovitz withstood scrutiny as a the board as a whole