Delaware Court Denies Dismissal of Caremark Oversight Claims in Teligent Case, Highlighting Board and Officer Compliance Obligations
In Giuliano v. Grenfell-Gardner et al. (Del. Ch. Sept. 2, 2025), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered fiduciary oversight claims under the Caremark doctrine arising from alleged deficiencies in board- and officer-level oversight at pharmaceutical company Teligent, Inc. The court denied, in substantial part, a motion to dismiss claims alleging that former directors and officers failed to implement and maintain systems to oversee FDA compliance, a risk characterized as central to the company’s operations.
The plaintiff, acting through a bankruptcy plan administrator appointed after Teligent’s Chapter 11 filing, was the company’s successor in interest. Once the case was realigned following bankruptcy, the claims were brought directly by the company rather than derivatively. As a result, the complaint was not subject to demand requirements, and the court assessed the allegations under the Rule 12(b)(6) “reasonable conceivability” standard.
Board-Level Oversight and Information Systems
The principal claims against the director defendants were brought under the first prong of Caremark, alleging an “utter failure” to implement a board-level system for monitoring regulatory compliance. The court emphasized that, while Delaware law affords boards substantial discretion in structuring oversight mechanisms, Caremark imposes a baseline obligation: directors must make a good-faith effort to establish reasonable systems to monitor risks that are central to the company’s business.
Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that the plaintiff adequately alleged such a failure. The complaint described a prolonged period during which the company allegedly lacked a board committee responsible for FDA compliance, formal reporting protocols requiring management to elevate regulatory issues to the board, and training systems designed to ensure employee awareness of core compliance obligations. The court rejected the argument that sporadic or management-driven communications sufficed, explaining that a reporting framework allowing management to decide whether and when to report on compliance matters does not satisfy Caremark’s minimum requirements.
Red Flags and the Limits of Board Liability
By contrast, the court dismissed claims under Caremark’s second prong, which requires allegations that directors consciously disregarded known “red flags.” Although FDA warning letters and inspection findings were communicated to the board at various points, the court found that the allegations supported an inference that the board was not fully informed of their significance. The opinion highlighted the analytical tension between information-systems and red-flags theories, noting that strong allegations of deficient reporting structures can undermine an inference that directors knowingly disregarded compliance issues.
Officer Oversight Obligations
The court also addressed oversight claims against former officers. Claims against the CEO and Chief Scientific Officer were permitted to proceed, based on allegations that FDA compliance fell within their respective areas of responsibility and that they failed to report known regulatory issues to the board. By contrast, claims against the CFO were dismissed, as FDA compliance did not fall within the CFO’s core responsibilities and the alleged nondisclosures concerning remediation costs were not plausibly connected to the company’s regulatory oversight failures. A separately pleaded duty-of-care claim was dismissed in its entirety, consistent with Delaware law requiring a showing of bad faith to sustain oversight liability.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces that Delaware courts continue to examine carefully whether boards have implemented meaningful oversight systems for risks that are fundamental to a company’s operations. It also confirms that officers may face oversight liability where compliance responsibilities fall squarely within their functional roles. For companies operating in heavily regulated industries, the opinion underscores the importance of clearly defined reporting structures, disciplined escalation of compliance issues, and governance frameworks that align oversight mechanisms with the organization’s most significant regulatory risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Board-Level Oversight and Information Systems
The principal claims against the director defendants were brought under the first prong of Caremark, alleging an “utter failure” to implement a board-level system for monitoring regulatory compliance. The court emphasized that, while Delaware law affords boards substantial discretion in structuring oversight mechanisms, Caremark imposes a baseline obligation: directors must make a good-faith effort to establish reasonable systems to monitor risks that are central to the company’s business.
Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that the plaintiff adequately alleged such a failure. The complaint described a prolonged period during which the company allegedly lacked a board committee responsible for FDA compliance, formal reporting protocols requiring management to elevate regulatory issues to the board, and training systems designed to ensure employee awareness of core compliance obligations. The court rejected the argument that sporadic or management-driven communications sufficed, explaining that a reporting framework allowing management to decide whether and when to report on compliance matters does not satisfy Caremark’s minimum requirements.
Red Flags and the Limits of Board Liability
By contrast, the court dismissed claims under Caremark’s second prong, which requires allegations that directors consciously disregarded known “red flags.” Although FDA warning letters and inspection findings were communicated to the board at various points, the court found that the allegations supported an inference that the board was not fully informed of their significance. The opinion highlighted the analytical tension between information-systems and red-flags theories, noting that strong allegations of deficient reporting structures can undermine an inference that directors knowingly disregarded compliance issues.
Officer Oversight Obligations
The court also addressed oversight claims against former officers. Claims against the CEO and Chief Scientific Officer were permitted to proceed, based on allegations that FDA compliance fell within their respective areas of responsibility and that they failed to report known regulatory issues to the board. By contrast, claims against the CFO were dismissed, as FDA compliance did not fall within the CFO’s core responsibilities and the alleged nondisclosures concerning remediation costs were not plausibly connected to the company’s regulatory oversight failures. A separately pleaded duty-of-care claim was dismissed in its entirety, consistent with Delaware law requiring a showing of bad faith to sustain oversight liability.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces that Delaware courts continue to examine carefully whether boards have implemented meaningful oversight systems for risks that are fundamental to a company’s operations. It also confirms that officers may face oversight liability where compliance responsibilities fall squarely within their functional roles. For companies operating in heavily regulated industries, the opinion underscores the importance of clearly defined reporting structures, disciplined escalation of compliance issues, and governance frameworks that align oversight mechanisms with the organization’s most significant regulatory risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In Giuliano v. Grenfell-Gardner et al. (Del. Ch. Sept. 2, 2025), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered fiduciary oversight claims under the Caremark doctrine arising from alleged deficiencies in board- and officer-level oversight at pharmaceutical company Teligent, Inc. The court denied, in substantial part, a motion to dismiss claims alleging that former directors and officers failed to implement and maintain systems to oversee FDA compliance, a risk characterized as central to the company’s operations.
The plaintiff, acting through a bankruptcy plan administrator appointed after Teligent’s Chapter 11 filing, was the company’s successor in interest. Once the case was realigned following bankruptcy, the claims were brought directly by the company rather than derivatively. As a result, the complaint was not subject to demand requirements, and the court assessed the allegations under the Rule 12(b)(6) “reasonable conceivability” standard.
Board-Level Oversight and Information Systems
The principal claims against the director defendants were brought under the first prong of Caremark, alleging an “utter failure” to implement a board-level system for monitoring regulatory compliance. The court emphasized that, while Delaware law affords boards substantial discretion in structuring oversight mechanisms, Caremark imposes a baseline obligation: directors must make a good-faith effort to establish reasonable systems to monitor risks that are central to the company’s business.
Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that the plaintiff adequately alleged such a failure. The complaint described a prolonged period during which the company allegedly lacked a board committee responsible for FDA compliance, formal reporting protocols requiring management to elevate regulatory issues to the board, and training systems designed to ensure employee awareness of core compliance obligations. The court rejected the argument that sporadic or management-driven communications sufficed, explaining that a reporting framework allowing management to decide whether and when to report on compliance matters does not satisfy Caremark’s minimum requirements.
Red Flags and the Limits of Board Liability
By contrast, the court dismissed claims under Caremark’s second prong, which requires allegations that directors consciously disregarded known “red flags.” Although FDA warning letters and inspection findings were communicated to the board at various points, the court found that the allegations supported an inference that the board was not fully informed of their significance. The opinion highlighted the analytical tension between information-systems and red-flags theories, noting that strong allegations of deficient reporting structures can undermine an inference that directors knowingly disregarded compliance issues.
Officer Oversight Obligations
The court also addressed oversight claims against former officers. Claims against the CEO and Chief Scientific Officer were permitted to proceed, based on allegations that FDA compliance fell within their respective areas of responsibility and that they failed to report known regulatory issues to the board. By contrast, claims against the CFO were dismissed, as FDA compliance did not fall within the CFO’s core responsibilities and the alleged nondisclosures concerning remediation costs were not plausibly connected to the company’s regulatory oversight failures. A separately pleaded duty-of-care claim was dismissed in its entirety, consistent with Delaware law requiring a showing of bad faith to sustain oversight liability.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces that Delaware courts continue to examine carefully whether boards have implemented meaningful oversight systems for risks that are fundamental to a company’s operations. It also confirms that officers may face oversight liability where compliance responsibilities fall squarely within their functional roles. For companies operating in heavily regulated industries, the opinion underscores the importance of clearly defined reporting structures, disciplined escalation of compliance issues, and governance frameworks that align oversight mechanisms with the organization’s most significant regulatory risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Board-Level Oversight and Information Systems
The principal claims against the director defendants were brought under the first prong of Caremark, alleging an “utter failure” to implement a board-level system for monitoring regulatory compliance. The court emphasized that, while Delaware law affords boards substantial discretion in structuring oversight mechanisms, Caremark imposes a baseline obligation: directors must make a good-faith effort to establish reasonable systems to monitor risks that are central to the company’s business.
Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that the plaintiff adequately alleged such a failure. The complaint described a prolonged period during which the company allegedly lacked a board committee responsible for FDA compliance, formal reporting protocols requiring management to elevate regulatory issues to the board, and training systems designed to ensure employee awareness of core compliance obligations. The court rejected the argument that sporadic or management-driven communications sufficed, explaining that a reporting framework allowing management to decide whether and when to report on compliance matters does not satisfy Caremark’s minimum requirements.
Red Flags and the Limits of Board Liability
By contrast, the court dismissed claims under Caremark’s second prong, which requires allegations that directors consciously disregarded known “red flags.” Although FDA warning letters and inspection findings were communicated to the board at various points, the court found that the allegations supported an inference that the board was not fully informed of their significance. The opinion highlighted the analytical tension between information-systems and red-flags theories, noting that strong allegations of deficient reporting structures can undermine an inference that directors knowingly disregarded compliance issues.
Officer Oversight Obligations
The court also addressed oversight claims against former officers. Claims against the CEO and Chief Scientific Officer were permitted to proceed, based on allegations that FDA compliance fell within their respective areas of responsibility and that they failed to report known regulatory issues to the board. By contrast, claims against the CFO were dismissed, as FDA compliance did not fall within the CFO’s core responsibilities and the alleged nondisclosures concerning remediation costs were not plausibly connected to the company’s regulatory oversight failures. A separately pleaded duty-of-care claim was dismissed in its entirety, consistent with Delaware law requiring a showing of bad faith to sustain oversight liability.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces that Delaware courts continue to examine carefully whether boards have implemented meaningful oversight systems for risks that are fundamental to a company’s operations. It also confirms that officers may face oversight liability where compliance responsibilities fall squarely within their functional roles. For companies operating in heavily regulated industries, the opinion underscores the importance of clearly defined reporting structures, disciplined escalation of compliance issues, and governance frameworks that align oversight mechanisms with the organization’s most significant regulatory risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Publications
Meghan Greenfield Discusses Top Environmental Policies to Watch in Law360
Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke to for an article highlighting the key environmental regulatory developments expected in the second half of 2026. Meghan discussed the legal reasoning the agency may rely on as it considers further rulemaking addressing greenhouse gas pollution, and hurdles the agency may face.
July 22, 2026
Publications
Partner Meghan Greenfield Quoted in The Associated Press on Offshore Wind and National Security
Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke with The Associated Press for an article examining the Trump Administration's use of national security justifications to halt offshore wind development.
July 21, 2026
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Event
Partner Suedeen Kelly to Speak at ABA SEER's 34th Fall Conference
On Thursday, October 15, Partner Suedeen Kelly will speak on a panel at the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (ABA SEER) 34th Fall Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
October 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026