Two men share securities regulation news

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Securities Regulation Daily, January 25, 2017

Requirement of supermajority vote to oust Nutrisystem directors violates DGCL

By Anne Sherry, J.D.

A corporate bylaw provision allowing shareholders to remove directors only by two-thirds vote violates the Delaware General Corporation Law, the chancery court held. The DGCL is an enabling statute, but it only permits the bylaws to contain provisions "not inconsistent with law," and Section 141(k) allows holders of a majority of shares to remove directors (Frechter v. Zier, January 24, 2017, Glasscock, S.).

Prior to January 7, 2016, Nutrisystem’s bylaws allowed stockholders to remove directors only for cause and upon a vote of two-thirds of outstanding shares. In a bench decision in late 2015, the chancery court held that a bylaw allowing directors to be removed only for cause violated Section 141(k), which allows shareholders to remove directors with or without cause. The Nutrisystem board approved an amendment to its bylaw that struck the for-cause requirement, but kept a supermajority vote in place.

A Nutrisystem shareholder sued for a declaratory judgment that the removal provision violated the statute. Defending the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the defendants argued that Section 141(k) "sets the rules only for the circumstances under which stockholders may remove directors without cause, and does not address the percentage of the vote that is required to remove directors." This argument was "not easily comprehensible" to the court, which construed it as a contention that Section 141(k) is merely permissive: it provides only that a majority of stockholders may remove directors, but leaves the bylaws free to set a different requirement.

That is an unnatural reading of the statutory provision, the court wrote. Section 141(k) is permissive in the sense that it allows, but does not require, stockholders to remove directors. Under the bylaw, however, a simple majority of stockholders may not exercise the Section 141(k) power, rendering the provision unambiguously inconsistent with the statute. The court also referred to the 2015 bench decision invalidating bylaws that allow removal only for cause. Just as the language of Section 141(k) permits removal without cause, so does it mandate that a majority of stockholders may remove directors.

The case is No. 12038-VCG.

Attorneys: Jessica Zeldin (Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.) for Harold Frechter. M. Duncan Grant (Pepper Hamilton LLP) for Dawn M. Zier.

Companies: Nutrisystem, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CorporateGovernance CorpGovNews GCNNews DirectorsOfficers DelawareNews

Back to Top

Securities Regulation Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Securities Regulation Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.


A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.