View source for Aronson v. Lewis

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Aronson v. Lewis
| court = [[Delaware Supreme Court]]
| image = Seal of the Supreme Court of Delaware.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| caption = 
| date decided = {{start date|1984|03|01|df=}}
| full name = 
| citations = 473 [[A.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1984/473-a-2d-805-4.html 805]
| judges = [[John J. McNeilly]], [[Andrew G. T. Moore II]], [[Andrew D. Christie]]
| decision by        = Moore
| prior actions =  
| subsequent actions = 
| transcripts =
| keywords = {{hlist | [[Directors' duties]] | [[business judgment rule]]}}
}}

'''''Aronson v Lewis''''', 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984),<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Aronson v. Lewis |vol=473 |reporter=A.2d |opinion=805 |pinpoint= |court=Del. |date=1984 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1984/473-a-2d-805-4.html |accessdate=2018-05-27 |quote=}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> is a [[US corporate law]] case, from [[Delaware]] concerning the possibility of a shareholder to bring a [[derivative suit]].

==Facts==
A shareholder claimed that the directors of Meyers Parking System Inc. had improperly wasted corporate assets. The CEO, Mr Fink, then 75 years old, was also a 47% shareholder and its founder. It was alleged he personally selected the other directors. They had given to Mr Fink a generous five year employment contract, a subsequent term as a consultant with a large salary, and an annual bonus equal to 5% of the company's pre tax profits. The contract also said that this continued regardless of Mr Fink's continued ability to perform the job.

==Judgment==
Justice Moore rejected the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that making a demand on the board would have been futile. He held that the '[[business judgment rule]]' was applicable. This meant,

{{blockquote|a presumption that in making a business decision, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis in good faith and in the honest belief that the action was taken in the best interests of the company.<ref>''Aronson'', 473 A.2d at 812.</ref>}}

==See also==
{{Slist derivative suit}}
*[[United States corporate law]]
*[[UK company law]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Aronson v Lewis'', 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984)
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2379496/aronson-v-lewis/
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2805892431585302628
 | justia =https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1984/473-a-2d-805-4.html
 }}

[[Category:United States corporate case law]]
[[Category:Delaware state case law]]
[[Category:1984 in Delaware]]
[[Category:1984 in United States case law]]