Case Title: Delaware County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Bergstein, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 199, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ § 
RETIREMENT FUND and CITY OF 
§ 
No. 199, 2015 
STERLING HEIGHTS GENERAL 
§ 
 
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT   
§ 
Court Below: 
SYSTEM, derivatively and on behalf of § 
 
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., 
§ 
Court of Chancery 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 10249-VCL 
    v.  
 
 
 
 
§ 
§ 
MELVYN E. BERGSTEIN, LARRY C. § 
GLASSCOCK, KAREN N. HORN, § 
ALLAN HUBBARD, REUBEN S. 
§ 
LEIBOWITZ, DANIEL C. SMITH, § 
J. ALBERT SMITH, JR., HERBERT § 
SIMON, DAVID SIMON, and  
§ 
RICHARD S. SOKOLOV, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, Appellees, § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
   and  
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Nominal Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 28, 2015 
Decided:   December 16, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices; WALLACE and WELCH 
Judges, constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
                                          
 
 Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const. Art. IV § 12. 
 
 
O R D E R 
  
 
This 16th day of December 2015, the Court, having considered this matter on the 
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed 
solely on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery’s analysis 
under Aronson v. Lewis1 in its March 27, 2015 bench ruling and Order, and its conclusion 
that six of Simon Property Group, Inc.’s ten directors were disinterested and 
independent.2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court 
of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
1 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984). 
2 We note that the Court of Chancery made this finding during the course of its analysis under 
Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993), but it applies with respect to its Aronson analysis, 
as well.  See Op. Br. Ex. A. at Tr. 73:14-17 (“The discussion we just went through does the vast 
majority of the work for the analysis under Aronson, not surprisingly, since Aronson is a more 
particularized version of the test.”).