## Facts

- Stockholders of AmerisourceBergen Corporation (ABC) brought a derivative action against ABC directors and senior officers arising from misconduct in ABC’s specialty-pharmaceuticals operations.
- A subsidiary business ran a pre-filled syringe program that removed oncology drugs from FDA-approved vials and repackaged them into single-dose syringes for sale to providers.
- The complaint alleged the program generated extra doses by extracting “overfill” from multiple vials, pooling it, and repackaging it, producing product beyond what ABC purchased from manufacturers.
- Plaintiffs alleged the entities did not register as required with regulators and failed to follow basic pharmacy and safety practices (e.g., prescriptions, patient safeguards, and sterile conditions), resulting in contamination risks.
- In 2007, a senior ABC executive retained outside counsel to review compliance oversight; the resulting report allegedly identified specific compliance shortcomings and recommended corrective measures that were not implemented.
- In 2012, regulators executed a search warrant at the facilities; the subsidiary later pleaded guilty to federal charges, and ABC shut down the business in 2014.
- Plaintiffs alleged the program was known to and approved by senior leadership, operated for years, and produced substantial profits while serious compliance warnings were ignored.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint did not plead a viable duty-of-oversight claim and did not plead demand futility with particularized facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint pled particularized facts supporting a reasonable inference of bad-faith oversight failures by directors and officers under Caremark (i.e., conscious disregard of compliance risks and red flags).
2. Whether demand on the board was excused because a majority of directors faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability or otherwise could not impartially consider a demand.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a non-exculpated Caremark oversight claim based on sustained, systemic regulatory non-compliance in a core business activity and a conscious failure to respond to red flags.
- The court held demand was excused because a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability on the pleaded loyalty-based, bad-faith oversight claim.

## Legal Principles

- Caremark oversight claims require particularized facts permitting an inference that fiduciaries acted in bad faith through (1) an utter failure to implement reporting/controls, or (2) a conscious failure to monitor and respond to compliance risks after controls exist.
- Bad-faith oversight liability is tied to a sustained or systematic failure to exercise oversight, not ordinary negligence.
- At the pleading stage, detailed allegations of long-running illegality central to the company’s business, coupled with specific compliance warnings and inaction, can support an inference of conscious disregard.
- Demand is excused when particularized facts show a majority of directors face a substantial likelihood of liability on a non-exculpated claim, impairing their ability to consider a litigation demand.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the derivative action to proceed, finding the allegations supported an inference of bad-faith oversight failures relating to a years-long, profit-generating, non-compliant drug repackaging program and that demand was futile because most directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability.


Teamsters Loc. 443 Health Servs. & Ins. Plan v. Chou, 2020 WL 5028065 (Del. Ch. 2020)