Opinion ID: 1959481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: McMullin's Amended Complaint

Text: McMullin does not dispute ARCO's right to sell its own 80% interest in Chemical for whatever consideration might have been acceptable to it, whether for cash or stock or a mixture of cash and stock. McMullin also acknowledges that this case does not involve a change of control of Chemical, as that concept has been described in the prior decisions of this Court. [42] The Amended Complaint does contend that the Chemical Board's recommendation to approve the Lyondell Transaction implicated the directors' ultimate fiduciary duty that was described in Revlon and its progeny [43]  to focus on whether shareholder value has been maximized. We agree with that contention because, rather than selling only its own 80% interest, ARCO negotiated for, with the Chemical Board's approval, the entire sale of Chemical to Lyondell. The Amended Complaint would withstand a motion to dismiss if it successfully alleged facts that, if true, would rebut the procedural presumption of the business judgment rule. To do that, McMullin had to successfully allege that the Chemical Board had breached any one of its triad of fiduciary duties of care, loyalty or good faith. McMullin contends that the allegations in her Amended Complaint demonstrate that the Chemical Board breached both its duty of care and its duty of loyalty. If McMullin is correct with regard to either or both of her contentions, the Chemical Directors' motion to dismiss should have been denied.