Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis

Supreme Court of Delaware · 2023 · Corporations

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsDerivative suitsDemand futilityCaremark oversight liabilityJudicial noticeRule 23.1CaremarkStone v. Ritter

Facts

Plaintiffs alleged that AmerisourceBergen's directors and officers knowingly failed to oversee the company's compliance with laws governing opioid distribution, despite numerous investigations, subpoenas, lawsuits, settlements, congressional reports, and extremely low suspicious-order reporting. The complaint alleged that the company adopted a Revised Order Monitoring Process in 2015 that dramatically reduced suspicious-order reporting while opioid orders increased, and that the board took no meaningful action despite extensive warning signs. The Court of Chancery initially found those allegations supported reasonable inferences of viable red-flags and Massey-based oversight claims. It nevertheless dismissed the complaint after giving dispositive effect to a later federal trial court decision finding AmerisourceBergen had substantially complied with the Controlled Substances Act in separate litigation.

Issue

May the Court of Chancery, at the Rule 23.1 pleading stage, rely on disputed factual findings from a later decision in another court's case through judicial notice to negate otherwise well-pleaded derivative allegations and defeat demand futility? If not, did the complaint itself adequately plead that a majority of the demand board faced a substantial likelihood of liability under Caremark-based theories?

Rule

Under Rule 23.1, demand futility is determined by asking whether the particularized factual allegations create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint is filed, the board could exercise independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand. Judicial notice under D.R.E. 202 permits notice of law, not another court's factual findings as law, and D.R.E. 201 does not permit a court to adopt disputed factual findings from another case as adjudicative facts. At the pleading stage, plaintiffs are entitled to all reasonable factual inferences that logically flow from well-pleaded particularized facts.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A stockholder of Harbor Vale Logistics, a Delaware corporation based in Phoenix, files a derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery alleging particularized facts that six of ten directors ignored repeated food-safety compliance warnings. Four months later, in separate federal litigation brought by different plaintiffs in Texas, a district judge finds after trial that Harbor Vale had substantially complied with federal food-safety law during the same period.

How should the Court of Chancery treat the later federal ruling when deciding whether demand was excused as futile?

Explanation. Rule 23.1 asks whether the particularized allegations create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint was filed, the board could exercise independent and disinterested business judgment on a demand. A later decision in separate litigation cannot be used to erase derivative standing by contradicting well-pleaded allegations with disputed factual findings. (Derived from Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis (n.d.).)