Delaware Federal Court Issues Significant Ruling Concerning Impact of Executive Compensation Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code on Delaware Corporate Law Governing Shareholder Voting

In a case of apparent first impression regarding the impact of the shareholder voting provisions of Internal Revenue Code I.R.C. § 162(m)on state corporate law, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the federal statute did not preempt Delaware law. Freedman v. Redstone, et al., Civ. No. 12-1052-SLR, 2013 WL 3753426, (D. Del. July 16, 2013). Specifically, Judge Robinson tax-deductible only if it is awarded pursuant to a plan approved by shareholders did not preempt Delaware state law that permits a corporation, in its charter, to designate certain classes of shares as non-voting. This ruling has potential ramifications in other cases in which federal law intersects with state law on matters of corporate governance. Judge Robinson also directors violated their fiduciary duties by awarding compensation not in compliance with the terms of the prior plan and I.R.C. § 162(m).

The Direct Claim The Court Rejects Plaintiffs Contention That I.R.C. § 162(m) Overrides Delaware Corporate Law on Shareholder Voting

In August 2012, plaintiff Robert Freedman, a holder of Class B shares of Viacom Inc., brought suit against Viacom and its directors seeking a re-vote on Viacoms Senior Executive Short-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective January 18, 2012 (the 2012 Senior Executive STIP), that was approved by a vote of Viacoms Class A shares at the companys Annual Meeting of Stockholders in March 2012. Under Viacoms charter, Class A shares are voting shares and Class B shares are non-voting shares. The 2012 Senior Executive STIP was designed to comply with I.R.C. § 162(m), which requires that certain conditions be met in order for performance-based compensation of a companys CEO and four highest-paid employees to be tax-deductible. One of those conditions is that the compensation be awarded pursuant to a plan whose material terms are disclosed to and approved by a majority of the vote in a separate shareholder vote. 26 USC § 162(m)(4)(c)(ii).

Please see full memo below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Shearman & Sterling LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.