Beam v. Stewart

833 A.2d 961 (2003)


  • P is a shareholder of Martha Stewart’s company and brought a suit derivatively.  P however, did not make a demand to the company’s directors.
    • P is alleging that Martha Stewart breached her fiduciary duties to the corporation by engaging in insider trading and then subsequently embarrassing the company with bad media.
  • P argues that it would be futile to make a demand to the board of directors to investigate his claim.
    • The board consists of six people: Martha Stewart; President; and four other.
    • Martha Stewart and the President were deemed as not being independent.
    • P argued that two of the directors were good friends with Martha Stewart, which made them not independent.
    • P further argued that the all members of the board faced loss of assets and personal liability.
  • The investigative committee excused the lawsuit.
  • P argues that due to all the interests the board members had in the action, the demand was futile and did not require that a demand be made.


  • Was the pre-suit demand properly dismissed and did the P require a demand?


  • The suit was not properly excused and the directors were sufficiently independent.
  • In evaluating the independence of an investigative committee, there will always be an interest in the outcome for board members.  They are, after all, board members.
    • To the extent that friendship is a factor in the relationship between the investigators and the board appointers, the friendship must be one that rises to a bias-creating level.
    • The court argues that the reputation of the company alone would be in jeopardy if the board publicly appointed members of an investigative committee that were known to have bias.

Comments are closed.