← All Authorities
United States conflict of interest s175nature of fiduciary relationshipminority protection

Brookfield Asset Management Inc v Rosson

261 A.3d 1251 (Del. 2021)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtDelaware Supreme Court
Year2021
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A controlling shareholder does not automatically owe fiduciary duties; actual control must be established on the facts before such duties arise.

Key Principle

The Delaware Supreme Court held that a controller does not automatically owe fiduciary duties; the existence and exercise of actual control must be established.

Area of Law

corporate

Related Cases

ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209

Directors breached their duty of care under s.180 Corporations Act by failing to prevent the company from providing inappropriate financial advice to retail clients.

Tornetta v Musk C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM (Del. Ch. 2024)

Board compensation decisions favouring a controlling stockholder require entire fairness review; subsequent stockholder ratification does not restore business judgment deference.

Slack Technologies LLC v Pirani 598 U.S. 759 (2023)

Section 11 of the Securities Act requires plaintiffs to trace their shares to the allegedly misleading registration statement; claims fail where shares cannot be so traced in a direct listing.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Brookfield Asset Management Inc v Rosson and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Brookfield Asset Management In...