## Facts

- Stockholders of Occidental Petroleum Corporation sued on both class and derivative bases alleging that Armand Hammer and directors caused Occidental to fund large charitable and related commitments primarily to enhance Hammer’s personal stature.
- Occidental circulated a proxy statement for the 1989 annual meeting describing a board-approved proposal to support a newly created Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center integrated with Occidental’s headquarters.
- The challenged commitments included: funding museum construction (estimated at about $50 million), granting a 30-year rent-free lease, funding an annuity (estimated after-tax cost about $24 million), and granting an option to purchase the complex at the end of the lease for an amount stated as estimated fair market value.
- The proxy also described Hammer’s employment-related arrangements, including a requirement that Occidental make a post-death lump-sum contribution to the Armand Hammer Foundation calculated by reference to Hammer’s prior-year compensation.
- Plaintiffs alleged materially deficient disclosures, corporate waste, director care violations, Hammer loyalty violations, and aiding and abetting by other directors.
- Occidental issued a supplemental proxy; plaintiffs conceded the supplemental disclosures supplied the corrective information previously sought.
- The parties negotiated a stipulation of settlement and sought Court of Chancery approval; an objector sought to enjoin the settlement as inadequate and preclusive of other suits.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class and derivative settlement was fair and reasonable in light of the likely merits, risks, and range of potential recovery.
2. Whether the challenged museum and foundation commitments plausibly supported claims for corporate waste or fiduciary breach sufficient to justify greater relief than provided by the settlement.

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery approved the settlement.
- The court found plaintiffs’ likelihood of ultimate success on the waste and fiduciary-duty claims was very poor.
- The court held the settlement’s benefits, including corrective disclosures and governance-related measures, were sufficient in light of the claims’ weakness and litigation risk.
- The court declined to block the settlement despite objections that it inadequately addressed the challenged conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Business judgment rule: directors are presumed to act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief they serve the corporation’s best interests; the presumption may be rebutted by showing disabling self-interest, lack of independence, grossly uninformed decisionmaking, or irrationality.
- Corporate waste is an exacting standard; liability requires a showing that the corporation received so little in return that no rational business person could view the exchange as adequate consideration.
- Settlement approval in class/derivative fiduciary litigation turns on whether the agreement is fair and reasonable under the factual and legal circumstances, considering the benefit conferred (monetary and non-monetary) relative to the realistic range of recovery and the probability of success.
- Where the merits appear weak under business judgment review, modest but concrete relief (including corrective disclosures and governance protections) can be sufficient consideration for a broad release.

## Conclusion

The Court of Chancery approved a negotiated settlement resolving stockholder challenges to substantial philanthropic and legacy-oriented corporate commitments, reasoning that the claims were unlikely to overcome business judgment protection or meet Delaware’s stringent waste standard and that the settlement’s disclosure and governance benefits were adequate given the low probability of a materially better outcome through continued litigation.


Sullivan v. Hammer, No. 11579, 1990 WL 114223 (Del. Ch. July 12, 1990)