McRitchie v. Zuckerberg

Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · 2024 · Corporations

CorporationsFiduciary DutiesCorporate Governancesingle-firm modelfirm-specific fiduciary dutiesdiversified-investor modelstockholdersdirectors

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that Meta's fiduciaries, especially controller and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, managed Meta to maximize engagement and profits even though Meta's business practices allegedly imposed social and economic harms that injured diversified stockholders' portfolios. Plaintiff also alleged that Meta's directors and officers held concentrated positions in Meta stock, creating a conflict between their interests and the interests of diversified investors. The complaint challenged Meta's business model generally, including its governance, compensation, stock repurchases, and responses to public reports about harms linked to Meta's platforms. Plaintiff's theory depended on the premise that Delaware fiduciary duties run to stockholders as diversified investors rather than as investors in the specific firm.

Issue

Do Delaware corporate fiduciary duties require directors, officers, and controllers to manage a corporation for the benefit of stockholders as diversified investors, rather than for the benefit of the corporation and its stockholders as firm-specific investors? If not, can concentrated ownership of company stock create a conflict based on divergence from diversified investors' interests?

Rule

Under Delaware law, directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation and its stockholders in a firm-specific sense: they must seek to maximize the value of the corporation over the long term for the benefit of the stockholders as residual claimants in that specific firm. Delaware law does not impose a diversified-investor model, does not require directors to manage for the economy as a whole, and does not treat concentrated ownership of the corporation's common stock as a conflict on the theory that diversified investors have different interests. Delaware's statutory framework does, however, permit private ordering through charter provisions that may tailor corporate purposes, powers, and fiduciary orientation.

🔒

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.

Pine Harbor Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Seattle, operates a profitable video-sharing platform. A stockholder, Elena Park, sues the board in Delaware, alleging the directors breached fiduciary duties by approving an advertising strategy that increased Pine Harbor's long-term profits but allegedly depressed the value of her diversified retirement portfolio because competing firms and the broader economy were harmed.

Which is the strongest basis for dismissing Elena's fiduciary-duty claim?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that Delaware follows a single-firm model: directors must seek to maximize the corporation's value over the long term for the benefit of that corporation and its stockholders as residual claimants in the firm. A claim premised on directors owing duties to stockholders as diversified investors fails as a matter of law. The opinion did not hold that this depends on stock-price movement, derivative posture alone, or a systemic-significance threshold. (Derived from McRitchie v. Zuckerberg (n.d.).)