Skip to main content

Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund v. McAfee, Inc.

CALCTAPP5DNovember 15, 2017No. H039508Cited 14 times
Mixed ResultMcAfee, Inc.

Case Details

Judge(s)
Premo
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, but appellate court affirmed as to nine outside directors while reversing judgment as to CEO DeWalt and corporate defendants, remanding for further proceedings on breach of fiduciary duty claims.

What This Ruling Means

**McAfee Pension Fund Case: Mixed Results on Executive Responsibility** This case involved a dispute between a workers' pension fund and computer security company McAfee, Inc. The pension fund sued McAfee's executives and board members, claiming they broke their legal duties to the company and its shareholders. The specific details of what the executives allegedly did wrong aren't provided, but the case centered on whether company leaders failed to properly fulfill their responsibilities. The court reached a split decision. Nine outside board members (directors who weren't company employees) won their case completely - the court said they weren't liable for any wrongdoing. However, the court ruled differently for CEO John DeWalt and the company itself. Their case will continue in lower court, where a judge will further examine whether they actually breached their fiduciary duties. For workers, this case shows that pension funds can successfully challenge corporate executives in court when they believe company leaders have acted improperly. While outside directors often receive strong legal protection, CEOs and companies themselves face greater accountability. This demonstrates that worker pension funds have legal tools to pursue corporate leaders who may have harmed the company through poor decisions or misconduct.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. McAfee, Inc.
Cal. Ct. App.Nov 2017
Unresolvable
Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada
11th CircuitDec 2005
Remanded
Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win
Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance
6th CircuitNov 2007
Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.