Master Delaware Supreme Court clarifies Revlon duties and the stringent bad-faith standard when directors approve a single-bidder, all-cash sale of control under a Section 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter. with this comprehensive case brief.
Lyondell Chemical v. Ryan is a cornerstone of Delaware corporate law on directors' fiduciary duties in sale-of-control transactions. Building on Revlon and QVC, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed what boards must do when confronted with a single-bidder, all-cash offer and, critically, how Section 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter provisions affect post-closing damages claims. The Court made clear that, although directors must seek the best price reasonably available once Revlon duties are triggered, Delaware law does not mandate any particular process—no auction, no market check, and no fixed checklist—so long as the board does not knowingly and completely fail to discharge its responsibilities.
Equally significant, Lyondell tightens the definition of bad faith. In a post-closing damages case where a corporation's charter exculpates directors from monetary liability for duty-of-care violations, plaintiffs must show a breach of the duty of loyalty via bad faith—an intentional dereliction of duty or a conscious disregard for responsibilities. The Court held that haste, imperfect process, or even gross negligence do not equal bad faith. That demanding standard has made Lyondell a key defense citation in M&A litigation and a central teaching case for law students studying fiduciary obligations and M&A deal process.
Lyondell Chemical Co. v. Ryan, 970 A.2d 235 (Del. 2009) (Del. Sup. Ct.)
Lyondell Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation in the commodity chemicals business, became the target of acquisition interest from Basell AF S.C.A., controlled by investor Leonard Blavatnik's Access Industries. Basell expressed interest as early as 2006 through Lyondell's CEO, and in mid-2007 made a formal, all-cash proposal at a substantial premium to market. After receiving a concrete approach, Lyondell's board convened a series of meetings over roughly a week, engaged financial and legal advisors, and evaluated the offer. The board did not conduct a pre-signing auction or a formal market check and did not solicit alternative bidders. It negotiated with Basell, securing a price increase (to approximately a 40–50% premium over the then-trading price) and customary deal protections, including a no-shop with a fiduciary out, matching rights, and a termination fee around market norms. The board approved a merger at $48 per share cash. Shareholders later approved the transaction, and the deal closed. A stockholder, Ryan, sued derivatively and on behalf of a class, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties under Revlon by failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the highest price, pointing to the compressed timeline, failure to shop the company, strong deal protections, and the CEO's delay in promptly informing the board of earlier Basell overtures. Because Lyondell's charter contained a Section 102(b)(7) provision exculpating directors from personal monetary liability for duty-of-care violations, the case turned on whether the directors acted in bad faith. The Court of Chancery denied the directors' motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of bad faith. The directors appealed.
In a post-closing damages action governed by a Section 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter, did Lyondell's directors breach their Revlon duties in bad faith—i.e., by knowingly and completely failing to discharge their responsibilities to obtain the best price reasonably available—when they approved a single-bidder, all-cash sale on a compressed timeline without a market check?
When Revlon duties are triggered—because the board initiates an active bidding process to sell the company or approves a transaction that will result in a change of control—directors must act reasonably to secure the best price reasonably available for stockholders. Delaware law does not prescribe a specific process (e.g., an auction or market check); courts assess reasonableness in context. In a post-closing damages case where the corporation's charter exculpates directors from monetary liability for breaches of the duty of care under 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7), directors can be liable only for non-exculpated breaches, namely bad faith (a form of loyalty breach). Bad faith requires an intentional dereliction of duty, a conscious disregard for known responsibilities; mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not bad faith. Deal protections are evaluated for reasonableness and for whether they are preclusive or coercive.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery and directed entry of summary judgment for the director defendants. Even assuming Revlon duties were triggered when the board decided to sell, the record did not support a reasonable inference that the directors acted in bad faith. At most, any shortcomings reflected negligence or gross negligence, which are exculpated under the company's Section 102(b)(7) charter. The single-bidder process, rapid timeline, and lack of a pre- or post-signing market check did not, under these facts, constitute a knowing and complete failure to discharge fiduciary responsibilities.
The Court first clarified the timing of Revlon duties: they do not attach merely because a company receives an expression of interest or is "in play." They arise when the board undertakes a transaction that will result in a change of control or otherwise decides to sell. Here, Revlon review applied when the board determined to proceed with Basell's all-cash sale. The core question then became whether the board's conduct evidenced bad faith. The Court emphasized that Revlon imposes a reasonableness standard, not a procedural checklist. Directors must try, in good faith, to secure the best price reasonably available; there is no per se requirement to run an auction, conduct a market check, or delay signing to canvass the market. Critically, because Lyondell had a Section 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter, any duty-of-care claims (including allegations of gross negligence in process) could not support monetary damages. Plaintiffs thus had to show a loyalty breach via bad faith—defined in Disney as an intentional dereliction of duty or conscious disregard for known responsibilities. The Court found no evidence that Lyondell's directors knowingly abandoned their duties. The board promptly met after receiving a firm proposal, retained advisors, negotiated an increase from the initial price to a higher per-share cash consideration representing a substantial premium, obtained a banker's fairness opinion, and secured only customary deal protections, including a fiduciary out. The absence of an auction or broader market check, standing alone, did not prove that the directors utterly failed to seek the best value, particularly where no competing bidder had emerged before signing and the protections were not preclusive or coercive. While the Chancery Court focused on the speed of the process, the CEO's earlier nondisclosure of preliminary outreach, and the lack of extensive valuation work before signing, the Supreme Court held these facts, even if true, showed at most an imperfect process or possible negligence. There was no indication the board acted with an improper motive or consciously chose not to pursue stockholder value. In short, the record did not support a reasonable inference of bad faith. Post-closing, with the exculpation clause in place, that failure of proof was dispositive.
Lyondell is a leading case on two fronts. First, it reaffirms that Revlon imposes a reasonableness standard, not a mandate for auctions or market checks; Delaware evaluates the totality of circumstances to determine whether directors attempted, in good faith, to obtain the best price reasonably available. Second, it sets a very high bar for post-closing damages claims in the presence of a Section 102(b)(7) charter: plaintiffs must show bad faith—knowing and complete disregard of duty—not merely process imperfections or even gross negligence. For law students, Lyondell illustrates the interplay among Revlon, Disney's bad-faith standard, QVC's change-of-control framework, and the remedial consequences of exculpatory charters, including the practical divide between pre-closing injunctive review and post-closing damages litigation.
Revlon duties arise when a board initiates an active bidding process to sell the company or approves a transaction that will result in a change of control, such as an all-cash sale to a single buyer. They do not attach merely because a company is approached or generally considered to be in play. In Lyondell, Revlon applied when the board decided to pursue the Basell cash sale.
No. Lyondell confirms that Delaware law does not prescribe a specific process. A board can comply with Revlon without running an auction or post-signing market check if, viewed in context, the directors made a reasonable, good-faith effort to secure the best price reasonably available and the deal protections are not preclusive or coercive.
Lyondell's charter exculpated directors from monetary liability for duty-of-care breaches, including gross negligence. Because the case was post-closing and sought damages, plaintiffs had to prove a non-exculpated breach—bad faith (a form of loyalty breach). The Supreme Court found no evidence of intentional dereliction or conscious disregard of duty, so summary judgment for the directors was required.
Drawing on Disney, the Court defined bad faith as an intentional dereliction of duty or a conscious disregard for responsibilities. It requires evidence that directors knowingly and completely failed to fulfill their obligations or acted for reasons other than advancing stockholder interests. Haste, flawed process, or even gross negligence does not constitute bad faith.
Often, yes. Pre-closing, plaintiffs typically seek injunctive relief to improve process or disclosures, and courts apply enhanced scrutiny to assess the reasonableness of the process. Post-closing damages claims, as in Lyondell, face the added hurdle of Section 102(b)(7) exculpation, requiring proof of bad faith for monetary liability, which is significantly harder to establish.
Boards should document their deliberations, engage qualified advisors, negotiate price and terms, ensure a fiduciary out, and avoid preclusive protections. While an auction is not mandatory, directors should be able to show they made a reasoned, good-faith effort to maximize value. Good records can defeat post-closing bad-faith claims in exculpated companies.
Lyondell Chemical v. Ryan powerfully reinforces that Revlon is about ends and reasonableness, not rigid procedural means. Once a board decides to pursue a change of control, it must act in good faith to secure the best price reasonably attainable. But the decision confirms that Delaware law affords boards substantial latitude to choose an approach suited to the circumstances, including a single-bidder strategy, provided the process is not preclusive and the board remains focused on stockholder value.
For litigators and students, Lyondell is equally important for its remedial implications. In post-closing damages actions against exculpated directors, plaintiffs must clear the high hurdle of proving bad faith. Imperfect process and even gross negligence will not suffice. That demanding standard has shaped M&A litigation strategy, placing a premium on seeking pre-closing injunctive relief and on careful board process and documentation to demonstrate a good-faith effort to maximize value.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →