La Corte del Delaware 27.06.2023 , C.A. No. 2022-1120-LWW, Simeone v. Walt Diusney, sulla nota controversia tra Ron De Santis e la Walt Disney, a seguito della decisione della seconda di opporsi alla legge c.d. «Don’t Say Gay» (il primo aveva minacciato di far perdere alla seconda benefici fiscali, con esternazione vagamente minatoria).
Il tema è interessnte, divenendo sempre più attuale l’intervento dei CEOs sui temi socialmente significativi.
C’è un profilo esterno (diritto di parola in senso tecnico in capo ad ente lucrativo) e uno interno (doveri del manegement verso i soci): i quali sono correlati (è il secondo a porre limiti al primo?).
Lite nata da istanza di accesso ai libri contabili secondo la Sec. 220, sempre più spesso azionata per facilitare le successive azioni di responsabiiità (v. saggi di Roy Shapira)
Riporto quanto segue:
<< Far from suggesting wrongdoing, the evidence here indicates that the Board actively engaged in setting the tone for Disney’s response to HB 1557.132 The Board did not abdicate its duties or allow management’s personal views to dictate Disney’s response to the legislation. Rather, it held the sort of deliberations that a board should undertake when the corporation’s voice is used on matters of social significance.
As Chapek told stockholders during Disney’s 2022 annual meeting, the company’s original approach to HB 1557 “didn’t quite get the job done.” The company, facing widespread backlash from its staff and creative talent, changed course after the full Board held a special meeting about “Political Engagement and Communications.” The Board discussed “the communications plan, philosophy and approach regarding Florida legislation and employee response.” Only then did Chapek announce that Disney opposed the bill. The Board’s consideration of employee concerns was not, as the plaintiff suggests, at the expense of stockholders.
A board may conclude in the exercise of its business judgment that addressing interests of corporate stakeholders—such as the workforce that drives a company’s profits—is “rationally related” to building long-term value. Indeed, the plaintiff acknowledges that maintaining a positive relationship with employees and creative partners is crucial to Disney’s success. It is not for this court to “question rational judgments about how promoting nonstockholder interests—be it through making a charitable contribution, paying employees higher salaries and benefits, or more general norms like promoting a particular corporate culture—ultimately promote stockholder value.”>>