SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A - 1852
- 15T1 PAUL BERGER, Derivatively on Behalf of MERCK & CO., INC., Plaintiff
- Appellant,

v. KENNETH C. FRAZIER, LESLIE A. BRUN, THOMS R. CECH, THOMAS H. GLOCER, WILLIAM B. HARRISON, JR., C. ROBERT KIDDER, ROCHELLE B. LAZARUS, CARLOS E. REPRESAS, PATRICIA F. RUSSO, CRAIG B. THOMPSON, WENDELL P. WEEKS, PETER C. WENDELL, ROBERT M. DAVIS, and PETER N. KELLOGG, Defendants
- Respondents,
and MERCK & CO., INC., Nominal Defendant
- Nominal Respondent.

______________________________________

Argued October 18, 201 7
– Decided Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz, and Suter. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L
- 1379
- 15. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36
- 3.

July 13, 20182 A - 1852
- 15T1 John F. Keating, Jr. (The Brualdi Law Firm, PC) argued the cause for appellant (Steven P. Lombardi , attorney; Richard B. Brualdi, Steven P. Lombardi, and John F. Keating , Jr., on the brief). Mark A. Kirsch (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (McCarter & English, LLP, and Mark A. Kirsch , attorneys; Mark A. Kirsch, Laura K. O'Boyle and Peter M. Wade (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, Samuel G. Liversidge (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) of the California bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Mary Gabriel , on t he brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Paul Berger appeals from a December 4, 2015 order that dismissed his shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against the individual members of Merck & Company's (Merck's) Board of Directors (Board) and three members of Merck's management (collectively, defendants). 1 The complaint alleged that

1 Defendants include: Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck's President and Chief Executive officer since 2011; Robert M. Davis, Merck's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) since 2014; Peter N. Kellogg, Merck's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 2007 to April 2014; Leslie A. Brun, a member of the Board since 2008; Thoms R. Cech, a member of the Board since 200 9; Thomas H. Glocer, a member of the Board since 2007; William B. Harrison, Jr., a member of the Board since 1999; C. Robert Kidder, a member of the Board since 2005; Rochelle B. Lazarus, a member of the Board since 2004; Carlos E. Represas, a member of th e Board since 2009; Patricia F. Russo, a member of the Board since 1995; Craig B. Thompson, a member of the Board since 2008; Wendell P. Weeks, a member of the Board since 2004; and Peter C. Wendell, a member of the Board since 2003.3 A - 1852
- 15T1

defendants caused Merck to fail to disclose its tax liability on indefinitely reinvested overseas earnings, otherwise known as the Repatriation Tax (Tax), when it filed its 2013 Fo rm 10
- K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We affirm dismissal of the complaint under Rule 4:6
- 2(e) , for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I. Merck is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in New Jersey.
Its common stock is traded on t he New York Stock Exchange . It is a "global health care company." In 2013, its revenue was approximately $43.9 billon ; it had $57.1 billion of earnings from its subsidiarie s outside the United States. Plaintiff is a
stockhold er of Merck. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 2 has developed various accounting standards. Standard 740
- 30
- 50
- 2 requires disclosure by companies of "[t]he amount of the unrecognized deferred tax liability for temporary differences
relat ed to investments in foreign subsidiaries and foreign corporate joint ventures that are essentially permanent in

2 FASB "establishes f inancial accounting and reporting standards for public and private companies and not
- for
- profit organizations that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." About Us , FASB, https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/LandingPage&cid=1175805 317407.4 A - 1852
- 15T1

duration if determination of that liability is practicable or a statement that determination is not practicable."
Merck's Form 10
- K for year en d 2013 , filed on February 27,
2014 , provided that,

[a]t December 31, 2013, foreign earnings of $57.1 billion have been retained indefinitely by subsidiary companies for reinvestment; therefore, no provision has been made for income taxes that would be pay able upon the distribution of such earnings and it would not be practicable to determine the amount of the related unrecognized deferred income tax liability. [Emphasis added.] Plaintiff contends in his complaint that calculation of the Tax is routine, r equiring only that "current tax laws and rates" be applied to "historical permanently reinvested earnings." He asserts that Merck's Form 10
- K was misleading without the Tax information. On October 28, 2014, plaintiff demanded that the Board file
a lawsu it against Merck's current and past directors for their failure to comply with Standard 740
- 30
- 50
- 2 when reporting the
Tax. Plaintiff asserted that this failure breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders. The Board hired the law firm of Forman & Sh apiro, LLP (F&S) to conduct an investigation of plaintiff's claims and to report its findings to the Board. F&S retained an accounting expert,5 A - 1852
- 15T1

interviewed partners at PricewaterhouseCoopers, who were the accountants for Merck, and spoke with certain curre nt and former Merck employees. It reviewed records from Merck's Audit Committee and communications between the Board and the SEC. F&S reported its findings at the February 2, 2015 Board meeting, advising that calculation of the deferred tax liability

was "not practicable" and that it was "reasonable" for Merck not to provide this Tax in its Form 10
- K. On February 25, 2015, the Board declined to file the lawsuit requested by plaintiff, finding it was "not in the company's best interests ." Plaintiff filed t his shareholder derivative lawsuit on April 7, 2015. The complaint alleged defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Merck by causing Merck to fail to disclose the Tax in its
Form 10
- K filed on February 27, 2014 (for the year ending December 31, 2013) w ith the SEC. It included a single count against defendants for breach of their duties of "due care, loyalty, good faith , and other obligations to Merck." The relief sought included a declaration of the breach, an affirmative injunction requiring
defendant s to comply with the accounting standard to disclose the Tax, moneta ry damages and attorney's fees. The complaint alleged that other large multinational companies, such as Apple, Microsoft and Citigroup, made disclosure of the Tax. "On information and bel ief," the complaint averred6 A - 1852
- 15T1

that Merck periodically made an estimate of the Tax. Plaintiff also said that for three prior years, Merck calculated and reported a "reconciliation between the effective tax rate and the U.S. statutory [tax] rate , which includ ed . . . foreign earnings and unremitted foreign earnings." The complaint alleged that potential changes to the tax laws could tax "accumulated unrepatriated foreign earnings of controlled foreign companies," creating a financial impact for Merck. Plaint iff complained that Merck's Board did not "investigate or consider the consequences" of violating this FASB standard even though a July 5, 2014 New York Times article had discussed the same issue and specifically referenced Merck. Another shareholder, the Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust, requested access to books and records about the same issue. According to plaintiff, the Board's minimal response showed it did not investigate or consider the issue. In July 2015, defendants filed a motion to dis miss the verified complaint under Rule 4:6
- 2(e) , for failure to state a claim. Defendants argued that plaintiff provided no factual support for its allegation that Merck could make the Tax calculation "practicably." Defendants averred that the complaint did not allege any acts or omissions by the individual directors that breached their fiduciary duties to the company. Plaintiff7 A - 1852
- 15T1

did not identify any purported harm to the company. Defendants also argued that the directors' decision not to institute suit was protected by the modified business judgment rule. Judge Thomas J. Walsh dismissed plaintiff's complaint under
Rule 4:6
- 2(e) for failure to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on December 4, 2015 , in an oral opinion. Plaintiff's complaint did no t allege that defendants breached any " law, regulation or other similar authority" by reporting that Merck's deferred tax liability was not practicable to calculate. Plaintiff did not articulate any facts to support his claims. Plaintiff did not say how defendants breached any fiduciary duty or that Merck's practices were "not customary in the industry." Merck's certificate of incorporation "parallel[ed] " N.J.S.A. 14:2
- 7(3) and limited the liability of a director or officer. The court found the complain t made "no allegation that the Board knew of a duty to act in regard to disclosure and consciously failed to do so;

nor [ did ] plaintiff's [ c ] omplaint assert any allegations regarding the Board's oversight of Merck's accounting practices. " There was
no obl igation by the Board to react to the New York Times newspaper article. The trial court did not address defendants' modified business judgment rule defense or their contention that plaintiff did not suffer damages.8 A - 1852
- 15T1

On appeal, plaintiff claims the trial co urt erred because it was practicable for the company to calculate and disclose the Tax. Plaintiff argues that Rule 4:6
- 2(e) was not properly applied. Had it been, the court would have accepted as true all the allegations he made, including that the Tax c ould be calculated. Plaintiff alleged the Board members breached their duty to "keep informed, to read and understand Merck's financial statements, including its tax disclosures," by not considering the tax implications of the
Tax. Also, the complaint sh ould not have been dismissed based on the exculpatory provision in Merck's certificate of incorporation. This was extrinsic to the complaint. It should not have been enforced at the pleading stage, before discovery. It was improper to deny injunctive re lief because the exculpatory clause did not address it. Plaintiff claims that the modified business judgment rule cannot be used as an alternate basis to affirm the trial court because the trial court did not consider it. Finally, plaintiff argues that Robert Davis, Merck's current chief financial officer (CFO ), is a necessary party to this litiga tion to enforce injunctive relief. We conclude that plaintiff's arguments lack merit and we affirm the dismissal of this litigation.9 A - 1852
- 15T1 II. We review de novo the challenged order that dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a cause of action, applying the same leg al standard as the trial court. Frederick v. Smith , 4 1 6 N.J. Super. 594, 597 (App. Div. 2010). A motion for failure to state a claim must be denied if, giving plaintiffs the benefit of all the ir factual allegations and all favorable inferences, a cause of action has been alleged in the complaint. Printing Mart
- Morristown v. Sharp Ele c s . Corp. , 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). Conclusory allegations do not provide an adequate basis to deny a motion t o dismiss under Rule 4:6
- 2. Id. at 768. We agree with the trial court that the complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 4:6
- 2(e). There is no dispute that FASB
standard 740
- 30
- 50
- 2 allows a company to report that it is not practicable to estimate th e Tax. Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 109 explains that a determination or calculation may be impracticable where "the cost to develop that information is excessive[.]" FAS No. 107, incorporated into a different section of the ASC, indicates that "p racticable" means, "that an estimate . . . can be made without incurring excessive costs." 3

3 See Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 107 , Accounting for Income Taxes, 7 (Dec. 1991), http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid12182201 23701&acceptedDisclaimer=true.10 A - 1852
- 15T1

Practicability, therefore, is a "dynamic concept," meaning what is practicable for one entity might not be for another and what is not practicable in one year migh t be practicable in another. We reject plaintiff's contention that we are required to accept as true his allegation that Merck can "practicably" estimate the Tax. That is a conclusion that he has not supported factually.
Under Rule 4:6
- 2(e), we are req uired to accept as true facts that are alleged, but not conclusory allegations. Scheidt v. DRS Tech s . , Inc. , 424 N.J. Super 188, 193 (App. Div. 2012). "[P]leadings reciting mere conclusions without facts and reliance on subsequent discovery do not justify a lawsuit." Glass v. Suburban Restoration Co. , 317 N.J. Super. 574, 582 (App. Div. 1998); see Lederman v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 385 N.J. Super. 324, 349 (App. Div. 2006). Plaintiff makes three arguments to support this conclusion, none of whic h are persuasive. Plaintiff contends on "information and belief" that Merck actually estimated the Tax. He provided no evidence or facts to support this. This claim is m eaningless because it was based on information and belief, not on personal knowledge even though the complaint was verified. See Monmouth
C ty . Social Serv. v. P.A.Q. , 317 N.J. Super. 187, 193
- 94 (App. Div. 1998) (providing that a complaint that is made without11 A - 1852
- 15T1

personal knowledge, it is a nullity and insufficient to invoke the court's jur isdiction); see also R. 1:4
- 7. Next plaintiff says that Merck was required to make a reconciliation between the effective tax rate and the U.S. statutory tax rate and did so in 2011, 2012 , and 2013. Defendants acknowledge that they were required to make a reconciliation between the effective tax rate and U.S. statutory tax rate, but that the calculation simply applied a 35% tax rate to foreign earnings. What is important here is that plaintiff did not explain how this reconciliation shows that Merck can p racticably estimate the Tax at issue. This then is another bare conclusion, not supported by facts. Plaintiff contends that other multinational companies, such as Apple and Microsoft, disclose the amount of the Tax. However,
that does not mean that Me rck can do the same or that its corporate structure is similar. These are entirely different corporations with separate overseas business holdings. Equating one company's capabilities with another is speculative. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that the complaint was properly dismissed
under Rule 4:6
- 2(e) because it relied on a newspaper article and conclusory statements without any supporting facts. Without factual support, we cannot "accept as true" plaintiff's conclusion
that Merck can calcu late the Tax "practicably."12 A - 1852
- 15T1

The breach of fiduciary duty claim also was properly dismissed by the trial court. The complaint alleged a single count for breach of fiduciary duty by Merck's directors and officers. Plaintiff argued that Merck's shareholder s "have a right to expect that directors will exercise reasonable supervision and control over the policies and practices of a corporation," citing Francis v. United Jersey Bank , 87 N.J. 15, 36 (1981). He claims that defendants had a "duty to look" which included "reading and understanding financial statements, and making reasonable attempts
at det ection and prevention of . . . illegal conduct." Id. at 31,
39.
Whether or not Francis sets forth the applicable standard, the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to meet the standard. The complaint did not cite a law or regulation violated by Merck's
2013 Form 10
- K. It did not identify any inadequacies with Merck's internal control s or its financial reporting process. It did not say what accounting standards were violated. There was no obligation by the Board to act based on a newspaper article that mentioned the company. There were no factual allegations made against individual Board members. We discern no error by the trial court in dismissing the complaint in the alternative based on the exculpation clause in13 A - 1852
- 15T1

Merck' s certificate of incorporation for directors and officers. It provide d that

all current and former directors and officers of the C orporation shall not be personally liable to the C orporation or its stockholders for damages for breach of duty owed to the C orporation or its stockholders , except that the provisions . . . shall not relieve a director or officer from lia bility for any breach of duty based upon an act or omission (a) in breach of such p erson's duty of loyalty to the C orporation or its stockholders, (b) not in good faith or involving a knowing violation of law or (c) resulting in receipt by such person of a n improper personal benefit. The certificate of incorporation was referenced by plaintiff in his complaint. The trial court could rely on it in deciding
the Rule 4:6
- 2(e) motion. See Myska v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. , 440 N.J. Super. 4 58, 482 (App. Div. 2 015) (quoting E. Dickerson & Son, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP , 361 N.J. Super. 362, 365 n.1 (App. Div. 2003) ("a court may consider documents specifically referenced in the complaint 'without converting the motion into one for summary judgment.'"). Plainti ff's complaint did not allege facts showing the individual defendants breached their duty of loyalty, acted in bad faith, knew about any violation of law or benefited from the Form 10
- K filing. We also reject plaintiff's argument that Robert Davis was a necessary party to the litigation. He was not CFO when the 201314 A - 1852
- 15T1

Form 10
- K was filed in February 2014. He is not needed for injunctive relief, given our decision here. In light of our opinion, we have no need to address any of plaintiff's arguments abou t the modified business judgment rule. Affirmed.