Opinion ID: 1927508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Liability of the Director Defendants

Text: After remand, the director defendants moved for dismissal in light of this Court's holding in Arnold I. The Court of Chancery granted the motion, finding that this Court's ruling in Arnold I prevents Plaintiff from recovering any damages from the Individual Defendants, whether based in law or equity. Arnold II, mem. op. at 2. Plaintiff contends that the Court of Chancery erred since Arnold I only gave effect to Bancorp's Certificate provision which, consistent with Section 102(b)(7), provided that no director ... shall be liable ... for monetary damages . . . . Plaintiff contends, therefore, that the possibility of an equitable remedy, such as rescissory damages, requiring payment of money by the director defendants remains viable after Arnold I. Plaintiff requests a remand for a determination, following discovery, whether there are any `equitable remedies' that do not constitute `monetary damages'. . . . This argument is without merit. Arnold I can be read only as a holding that the directors are free from personal financial liability whether monetary damages arise out of legal or equitable theories. 8 Del.C. § 102(b)(7); Arnold I, 650 A.2d at 1290. Since they no longer serve as directors and cannot be subject to an injunction, the director defendants are entitled to dismissal. The Court of Chancery correctly decided that this decision is the law of the case.