In re Viacom Inc. Stockholders Litigation ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •     IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    IN RE VIACOM INC.                            )    CONSOLIDATED
    STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION                      )    C.A. No. 2019-0948-JRS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Date Submitted: September 15, 2020
    Date Decided: December 29, 2020
    Gregory V. Varallo, Esquire of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
    Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esquire, Edward G. Timlin, Esquire,
    Andrew E. Blumberg, Esquire and Daniel E. Meyer, Esquire of Bernstein Litowitz
    Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff
    California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
    Chad Johnson, Esquire, Noam Mandel, Esquire and Desiree Cummings, Esquire of
    Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New York, New York; Christopher H.
    Lyons, Esquire of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, Tennessee,
    Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Park Employees’ and Retirement Board
    Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago.
    Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esquire and Anne B. Beste, Esquire of Bottini & Bottini, Inc.,
    La Jolla, California, Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Louis M. Wilen.
    Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire, Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire, Christopher N. Kelly,
    Esquire, J. Matthew Belger, Esquire, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Esquire and Callan R.
    Jackson, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and
    Victor L. Hou, Esquire, Rahul Mukhi, Esquire and Mark E. McDonald, Esquire of
    Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
    Defendants National Amusements, Inc., NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, and
    Shari E. Redstone.
    Gregory P. Williams, Esquire, Blake Rohrbacher, Esquire and Kevin M. Regan,
    Esquire of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Robert H.
    Baron, Esquire, Gary A. Bornstein, Esquire and Rory A. Leraris, Esquire of Cravath,
    Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Thomas J.
    May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald Nelson and Nicole Seligman.
    Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire, D. McKinley Measley, Esquire, Alexandra M.
    Cumings, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
    and Stuart J. Baskin, Esquire and Randall Martin, Esquire of Shearman & Sterling
    LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant Robert M. Bakish.
    SLIGHTS, Vice Chancellor
    Delaware’s General Corporation Law is a prime example of codified law that
    “elegant[ly] and flexibl[y]” enables those it regulates to fulfill their vital and multi-
    faceted purposes.1 As a “counterpoint” to the DGCL’s enabling and contractarian
    features, “the ex post judicial review of the actions of corporate officers and
    directors, measured by fiduciary principles” exists as a means to ensure that those
    charged with the management of the corporation act with a loyal purpose
    “when exercising their broad powers over corporate property and processes.” 2
    This ex post judicial review is presumptively deferential in recognition of both the
    managerial primacy of the board of directors, as provided for in the DGCL, and the
    prudence of encouraging managerial “creativity and risk-taking.”3 Indeed, for these
    reasons, as a general matter, the conduct of corporate fiduciaries is given less judicial
    scrutiny than the conduct of trust fiduciaries. 4 But courts of equity, where judicial
    review of fiduciary conduct abides, have long been on qui vive for the self-dealing
    fiduciary who steers the corporation into transactions that enrich the fiduciary to the
    1
    William T. Allen, Jack B. Jacobs and Leo E. Strine, Jr., Function Over Form:
    A Reassessment of Standards of Review in Delaware Corporation Law, 56 Bus. L. Rev.
    1287, 1289 (Aug. 2001) (hereinafter “Function Over Form”).
    2
    Id.
    3
    Leo E. Strine, Jr., The Delaware Way: How We Do Corporate Law and Some of the
    Challenges We (and Europe) Face, 
    30 Del. J. Corp. L. 673
    , 675 (2005) (hereinafter
    “The Delaware Way”).
    4
    Function Over Form, at 1289.
    1
    potential detriment of the stockholders.5 In these instances, “the duty of loyalty is
    rigorously enforced by requiring the [fiduciaries] to justify as intrinsically fair any
    transaction in which they had a financial interest.”6
    “Consistent with the nuance that infuses our common law, Delaware is more
    suspicious when the fiduciary who is interested [in a transaction] is a controlling
    stockholder.” 7 Thus, this court is, and should be, skeptical when a controlling
    stockholder seeks a pleading stage dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims
    brought on behalf of public stockholders who challenge the bona fides of a
    transaction where the controller indisputably stands on both sides of the transaction.8
    Indeed, when a controlling stockholder engages in self-dealing, she should assume,
    if challenged, that the court will perform its “ex post review” function with vigor,
    5
    Id. at 1290 (noting that duty of loyalty claims, addressing primarily claims involving self-
    dealing, are the fiduciary duty claims with “the longest pedigree”).
    6
    Id.
    7
    The Delaware Way, at 678 (explaining that, “[w]hen that is so, there is an obvious fear
    that even putatively independent directors may owe or feel a more-than-wholesome
    allegiance to the interests of the controller, rather than to the corporation and its public
    stockholders”).
    8
    Lewis H. Lazarus, Brett M. McCartney, Standards of Review in Conflict Transactions on
    Motions to Dismiss: Lessons Learned in the Past Decade, 
    36 Del. J. Corp. L. 967
    , 998–99
    (2011) (reviewing the interaction between the plaintiff-friendly standard of review
    embodied in Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) and the standards of review applied in
    Delaware to adjudicate breach of fiduciary claims in the corporate context, and observing
    that dismissals of complaints challenging transactions where the controller “stands on both
    sides” of a transaction are extraordinary).
    2
    and that it will generally allow public stockholders who might challenge the self-
    dealing transaction an opportunity to proceed beyond the pleadings to test the
    fairness of the transaction. 9 This case, involving one of the more visible, hotly
    contested instances of alleged controlling stockholder self-dealing in recent memory,
    is no exception. 10
    A putative class of Viacom Inc. stockholders allege that the controlling
    stockholders of both Viacom and CBS Corporation, defined below as the NAI
    9
    That the court allows a plaintiff to take discovery in support of his claims does not mean
    the court has fixed the standard of review for all time come what may. See Orman v.
    Cullman, 
    794 A.2d 5
    , 31 (Del. Ch. 2002) (“Reaching this decision with regard to the loyalty
    of the Board that approved the merger, however, does not rebut the business judgment
    presumption at this stage of the litigation. It merely means that the business judgment
    presumption may not be used as the basis to dismiss Orman’s fiduciary duty claims for
    failure to state a cognizable claim. Further discovery is necessary to determine whether the
    facts—as they truly existed at the time of the challenged transaction, rather than those
    accepted as necessarily true as alleged—are sufficient to rebut the business judgment rule
    presumption and to trigger an entire fairness review.”).
    10
    Of course, our Supreme Court has drawn a “road map” for those engaged in transactions
    with conflicted controlling stockholders to earn business judgment deference at the
    pleading stage for all fiduciaries involved in the transaction. See Kahn v. M&F Worldwide
    Corp., 
    88 A.3d 635
     (Del. 2014) (“MFW”) (holding that breach of fiduciary duty claims
    arising out of a squeeze-out merger conditioned from the outset upon both the negotiation
    and approval of a fully empowered independent special committee of the board and the
    uncoerced, fully informed vote of a majority of the minority stockholders in support of the
    transaction will be reviewed under the business judgment rule), overruled in part, Flood v.
    Synutra Int’l, Inc., 
    195 A.3d 754
     (Del. 2018); Flood, 195 A.3d at 770 (affirming trial court
    dismissal of a complaint under Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) where defendants had clearly
    complied with the MFW dual protections); In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
    S’holder Litig., 
    2017 WL 3568089
    , at *18 (Del. Ch. Aug. 18, 2017) (describing the dual-
    protections laid out in MFW as a “road map” for fiduciaries to earn business judgment
    review of their conduct in approving transactions with conflicted controllers).
    3
    Parties, caused Viacom and CBS to merge and become the combined entity now
    known as ViacomCBS, Inc. (the “Merger”). According to Plaintiffs, the NAI
    Parties are controlled by Shari Redstone (“Ms. Redstone”). Ms. Redstone is alleged
    to have exerted her control over other Viacom fiduciaries in a manner that caused
    them to negotiate and approve the Merger out of loyalty to her on terms detrimental
    to Viacom and its public stockholders.11
    Plaintiffs’ complaint spins a tale of Ms. Redstone’s unrelenting drive to attain
    the status of “media magnate” that would rival or surpass the legacy of her father,
    Sumner Redstone. According to Plaintiffs, in 2016, Ms. Redstone initiated a
    campaign to consolidate the media empire her father had built. Her first step was to
    augment her control of the NAI Parties. She then attempted to leverage her control
    of the NAI Parties to cause the entities they controlled, Viacom and CBS, to merge
    on three separate occasions, in 2016, 2018, and then again (successfully) in 2019.
    In 2016 and 2018, when her attempts to effect a Viacom/CBS combination failed,
    she took steps to remove the obstacles and tried again.
    11
    In an interesting twist, a putative class of CBS stockholders have brought a separate
    lawsuit in this Court in which they allege that CBS fiduciaries, including the NAI Parties,
    breached their fiduciary duties by causing CBS to merge with Viacom on terms unfair to
    CBS. See In re CBS Corp. S’holder Class and Deriv. Action, C.A. No. 2020-0111-JRS.
    The CBS fiduciaries have moved to dismiss that consolidated action and the Court expects
    to issue its opinion addressing those motions shortly.
    4
    In 2018, Ms. Redstone convinced an allegedly compromised Viacom
    transaction committee to push for a merger with CBS (for the second time), but her
    insistence that Viacom CEO and alleged NAI loyalist, Robert Bakish, be named to
    the board of the pro forma company prompted CBS to reject the deal and stop
    talking. Undeterred, Ms. Redstone was back again in 2019, pushing the same
    conflicted Viacom transaction committee to push the same transaction that CBS had
    rejected the year before, but this time she insisted that CBS agree that Bakish would
    not only have a seat on the board but also be named CEO of the pro forma company.
    CBS sensed that Ms. Redstone’s fixation on installing her compatriot Bakish as CEO
    of the combined company could be exploited, and its special committee insisted that
    Viacom make a commensurate “significant concession” on price in exchange for its
    governance priorities. The Viacom transaction committee did just that, ultimately
    agreeing to accept approximately $1 billion less in the Merger than it had bargained
    for just a year before.
    Plaintiffs bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NAI Parties,
    Bakish and the members of Viacom’s transaction committee for their role in
    consummating the Merger. Each defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.
    In doing so, they urge the Court to review Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims
    under the deferential business judgment rule since Plaintiffs have alleged nothing
    more than that the NAI Parties stood on both sides of the merger. According to
    5
    Plaintiffs, a controller’s mere presence on both sides of a transaction is not enough
    to trigger entire fairness review; Plaintiffs must also well plead that the controller
    exploited its control position to the tangible detriment of the minority stockholders.
    Citing the seminal Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 12 Plaintiffs maintain that the
    Defendants’ position plainly misstates Delaware law, which has, for decades,
    recognized that, “[t]he requirement of fairness is unflinching in its demand that
    where one stands on both sides of a transaction, he has the burden of establishing its
    entire fairness, sufficient to pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts.”13
    According to Plaintiffs, the controller’s presence on both sides of a transaction is
    “inherently coercive” with respect to other corporate decision makers, and entire
    fairness scrutiny, therefore, is required to gauge whether the transaction replicated
    what would have been secured for the corporation and its stockholders at arms-
    length. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue their complaint more than adequately pleads
    that the NAI Parties, and Ms. Redstone in particular, secured value from the
    Viacom/CBS Merger that was not shared with other Viacom stockholders.
    The parties’ fundamental disagreement over the supposedly settled state of
    our law regarding whether the controller’s “mere presence” on both sides of a merger
    12
    
    457 A.2d 701
     (Del. 1983).
    13
    
    Id. at 710
     (emphasis added).
    6
    is enough to trigger entire fairness review is interesting to be sure, but ultimately
    academic. After carefully reviewing the complaint, I am satisfied it adequately
    pleads a reasonably conceivable basis to infer that the controller achieved a non-
    ratable benefit from the Merger to the detriment of Viacom’s public stockholders.
    Thus, at this stage, and without prejudice to Defendants’ right to argue otherwise on
    a more developed record, I am satisfied that NAI’s conduct with respect to the
    Merger should be reviewed for entire fairness.
    NAI could have agreed to the MFW dual protections to avoid entire fairness
    review but explicitly directed the special committees of both Viacom and CBS to
    proceed on the assumption that NAI would not agree to allow the minority
    stockholders of either company to decide whether to proceed with the Merger.
    If implemented, the dual protections provided to minority stockholders under the
    MFW framework would have sufficiently neutralized the NAI Parties coercive
    influence over the process.14 Absent these protections, a conflicted controller
    14
    Tornetta v. Musk, 
    2019 WL 4566943
    , at *12 (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2019) (observing that
    “MFW’s ‘dual protections’ are meant to ‘neutralize’ the conflicted controller’s
    ‘presumptively coercive influence’ so that judicial second-guessing is no longer required”
    (quoting In re Rouse Prop., Inc., 
    2018 WL 1226015
    , at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2018))). To be
    clear, I am not suggesting that the NAI Parties’ refusal to agree to implement the MFW
    protections is indicative of fiduciary wrongdoing. It is not. But the lack of MFW dual
    protections does render pleading stage business judgment deference unavailable to the NAI
    Parties if Plaintiffs have well pled that they were controlling stockholders who were
    conflicted with respect to the Merger. And, as discussed below, Plaintiffs have carried that
    pleading burden.
    7
    standing on both sides of a transaction cannot avoid entire fairness review of that
    transaction. Here, the complaint well pleads that the Merger was not entirely fair.
    It follows, then, that the motion to dismiss the claims against the NAI Parties must
    be denied.
    Plaintiffs also assert claims against the members of Viacom’s transaction
    committee who negotiated the transaction on Viacom’s behalf and recommended its
    approval, alleging these fiduciaries not only maintained relationships with
    Ms. Redstone that conceivably compromised their independence, but also labored
    under a “controlled mindset” that caused them to succumb to the will of the
    controller. In other words, Plaintiffs allege that the willingness of the fiduciaries
    who served on Viacom’s transaction committee to allow Ms. Redstone to dominate
    their decision-making rendered them servile tools in Ms. Redstone’s relentless
    pursuit of a Viacom/CBS combination to advance her interests.                            Thus,
    notwithstanding the Section 102(b)(7) provision in Viacom’s charter, 15 Plaintiffs
    15
    See 8 Del. C. § 102(b)(7) (enabling Delaware corporations to adopt a provision in their
    certificate of incorporation, “eliminating or limiting the personal liability of a director to
    the corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a
    director, provided that such provision shall not eliminate or limit the liability of a director:
    (i) For any breach of the director’s duty of loyalty to the corporation or its stockholders;
    (ii) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a
    knowing violation of law; (iii) under § 174 of this title; or (iv) for any transaction from
    which the director derived an improper personal benefit”).
    8
    maintain they have stated viable, non-exculpated claims against each member of the
    Viacom transaction committee.
    For reasons explained below, I agree with Plaintiffs that their complaint states
    non-exculpated breach of loyalty claims against the members of the Viacom
    transaction committee.     The well-pled facts relating to the controller’s past
    predations, her direct involvement in Merger negotiations and her relationships with
    the members of the Viacom transaction committee are enough to allow pleading-
    stage inferences that these fiduciaries did not act independently and in the best
    interests of Viacom’s minority stockholders when negotiating and ultimately
    consummating the Merger.        Thus, notwithstanding the exculpation clause in
    Viacom’s charter, the motion to dismiss the claims against these defendants must
    also be denied.
    The same cannot be said of the motion to dismiss brought by Bakish.
    Regardless of the applicable standard of review, our law requires that a plaintiff
    plead a factual basis to support a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. In other words,
    the complaint must put the fiduciary on notice of what he is alleged to have done
    wrong. Given that not a single allegation in the complaint alleges actionable
    wrongdoing by Bakish, the claim against him, as set forth in Count III, must be
    dismissed.
    9
    I. BACKGROUND
    I have drawn the facts from well-pled allegations in the Verified Class Action
    Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) and documents incorporated by reference or
    integral to that pleading.16 For purposes of the motion, as I must, I accept as true the
    Complaint’s well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in
    Plaintiffs’ favor.17
    A. The Parties and Relevant Non-Parties
    Non-party, Viacom, was a publicly traded Delaware corporation
    headquartered in New York, New York. 18 Viacom provided entertainment-related
    services and products through its primary business units, Viacom Media Networks
    and Paramount Pictures. 19 In addition to feature films released by Paramount
    Pictures, Viacom was well known for its cable channels, including MTV, BET,
    VH1, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.20 Viacom featured a dual-class stock
    structure, with voting Class A Common Stock and non-voting Class B Common
    16
    First Am. Verified Class Action Compl. (“Compl.”) (D.I. 41); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
    AIG Life Ins. Co., 
    860 A.2d 312
    , 320 (Del. 2004) (noting that on a motion to dismiss, the
    Court may consider documents that are “incorporated by reference” or “integral” to the
    complaint).
    17
    Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 
    812 A.2d 894
    , 896–97 (Del. 2002).
    18
    Compl. ¶ 17.
    19
    
    Id.
    20
    
    Id.
    10
    Stock.21 Both classes of stock were publicly traded on the New York Stock
    Exchange as “VIA” and “VIA.B,” respectively. 22
    Non-party, CBS, was a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered
    in New York.23 CBS was a mass media conglomerate, with operations in cable,
    publishing, local television, film and streaming services. 24 CBS also maintained a
    dual class stock structure, again with voting Class A Common Stock and non-voting
    Class B Common Stock. 25 Both classes of stock were publicly traded on the New
    York Stock Exchange as “CBS.A” and “CBS,” respectively. 26
    Lead     Plaintiff,   California   Public   Employees’   Retirement   System
    (“CalPERS”), has held shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock in Viacom at
    all relevant times. 27 Additional Plaintiffs, Park Employees’ and Retirement Board
    Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen (together
    21
    
    Id.
    22
    
    Id.
    23
    Compl. ¶ 18.
    24
    
    Id.
    25
    
    Id.
    26
    
    Id.
    27
    Compl. ¶ 14.
    11
    with CalPERS, “Plaintiffs”), have held shares of Class B Common Stock in Viacom
    at all relevant times as well. 28
    Defendant, National Amusements, Inc. (“National Amusements”), is a
    privately held Maryland corporation headquartered in Norwood, Massachusetts, and
    Defendant, NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC (together with National Amusements,
    “NAI”), is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Amusements. 29 NAI is a national
    movie theater operator founded by Ms. Redstone’s grandfather. 30 NAI was the
    controlling stockholder of both Viacom and CBS at all relevant times, holding
    approximately 80% of the Class A voting shares of each company. 31 Despite holding
    nearly 80% of the voting power in each company, NAI held only approximately
    10.5% of the economic value of CBS and 9.9% of the economic value of Viacom at
    the time of the Merger. 32
    Defendant, Shari E. Redstone (together with NAI, the “NAI Parties”), is a
    director, president and controlling stockholder of NAI. 33 Ms. Redstone owns
    28
    Compl. ¶¶ 15–16.
    29
    Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24.
    30
    Compl. ¶ 23.
    31
    Compl. ¶ 24.
    32
    
    Id.
    33
    Compl. ¶ 20.
    12
    approximately 20% of NAI through the Shari E. Redstone Trust.34 She served as a
    director of Viacom and as the Non-Executive Vice Chair of both the CBS and
    Viacom boards of directors at all relevant times. 35 Ms. Redstone is currently the
    Chair of the ViacomCBS board of directors (the “ViacomCBS Board”).36
    Non-party, Sumner Redstone, was the Emeritus Chairman of both CBS and
    Viacom. 37 He was Ms. Redstone’s father. 38 At the time Plaintiffs’ Complaint was
    filed, Sumner Redstone was the CEO, owner and Chairman of the Board of NAI,
    and he held approximately 80% of the voting control of NAI through the Sumner M.
    Redstone National Amusements Trust (“Trust”).39 Sumner Redstone has since
    passed, effectively leaving the control of the Trust and, by extension NAI, to
    Ms. Redstone.40
    34
    
    Id.
    35
    
    Id.
    36
    
    Id.
    37
    Compl. ¶ 21.
    38
    Compl. ¶ 20.
    39
    Compl. ¶ 22.
    40
    
    Id.
    13
    Defendant, Thomas J. May, served on and chaired the Viacom board of
    directors (the “Viacom Board”) from June 16, 2016 until the Merger closed.41 May
    was co-chair of the Viacom special transaction committee (the “Viacom
    Committee”) for each of the three attempted mergers with CBS (including the
    consummated Merger at issue here).42          May has lived on the same street as
    Ms. Redstone since 1994, and May, Ms. Redstone and Sumner Redstone served
    together on two non-profit boards. 43
    Defendant, Judith A. McHale, served on the Viacom Board from June 16,
    2016 until the Merger closed.44 McHale was a member of the Viacom Committee
    for all three attempted mergers with CBS. 45 She was general counsel for MTV
    Networks in the mid-1980s when Viacom acquired the company. 46           McHale
    currently serves on the ViacomCBS Board. 47
    41
    Compl. ¶ 26.
    42
    
    Id.
    43
    
    Id.
    44
    Compl. ¶ 27.
    45
    
    Id.
    46
    
    Id.
    47
    
    Id.
    14
    Defendant, Ronald L. Nelson, served on the Viacom Board from June 16,
    2016 until the Merger closed. 48 Nelson was a member of the Viacom Committee for
    all three Viacom/CBS merger attempts.49 He was CFO and a director at Paramount
    when Viacom acquired the company, and he subsequently became COO at
    DreamWorks, which co-produced a variety of projects with Paramount.50 Nelson
    currently serves on the ViacomCBS Board. 51
    Defendant, Nicole Seligman (together with May, McHale and Nelson, the
    “Viacom Committee Defendants”), served on the Viacom Board from June 16, 2016
    until the Merger closed. 52 Seligman was co-chair of the Viacom Committee for all
    three Viacom/CBS merger attempts. 53 She was a former executive at Sony, of which
    NAI is a “long-term . . . customer,” and she and Ms. Redstone served on a non-profit
    board together. 54 Seligman and Ms. Redstone regularly attend trade and social
    48
    Compl. ¶ 28.
    49
    
    Id.
    50
    
    Id.
    51
    
    Id.
    52
    Compl. ¶ 29.
    53
    
    Id.
    54
    
    Id.
    15
    events together, and the closeness of their personal relationship has been the subject
    of several media reports.55 Seligman currently serves on the ViacomCBS Board.56
    Defendant, Robert M. Bakish, is a Viacom veteran, having served for years as
    President and CEO of International Media Networks and its predecessor, MTV
    Networks International, before serving as President, CEO and board member of
    Viacom from December 2016 until the Merger closed.57 Bakish is currently the
    President and CEO of ViacomCBS.58
    B. Viacom’s Pre-2016 History
    At Sumner Redstone’s behest, NAI first acquired a controlling interest in
    Viacom in 1987.59 Throughout the years, Viacom made numerous acquisitions,
    including its acquisition of CBS in 2005. 60 On December 31, 2005, Sumner
    Redstone split Viacom and CBS, establishing the separate and operative legal
    entities that existed as of the Merger.61 Sumner Redstone selected Les Moonves as
    55
    
    Id.
    56
    Compl. ¶ 29.
    57
    Compl. ¶ 25.
    58
    
    Id.
    59
    Compl. ¶ 19.
    60
    Compl. ¶¶ 19, 33.
    61
    Compl. ¶¶ 17, 34.
    16
    CEO of CBS and Phillipe Dauman as CEO of Viacom. 62 As noted, while NAI
    ensured its position as controlling stockholder in both entities by holding
    approximately 80% of the voting stock of each company, 63 it owned less than 11%
    of the equity in either entity as of the Merger. 64
    Recognizing this discrepancy between control and economic risk, Sumner
    Redstone took pains to ensure that responsible corporate governance was a
    cornerstone of both Viacom and CBS. 65 One particularly salient measure related to
    succession; Mr. Redstone made clear his desire that the boards of Viacom and CBS
    select his successor because, in his view, his daughter, Shari Redstone, was not
    suitable for the job. 66
    As Sumner Redstone’s health deteriorated in early 2016, he abdicated the
    roles of Chairman of Viacom and CBS.67 Viacom moved to appoint Phillipe
    62
    Compl. ¶ 34.
    63
    Compl. ¶¶ 19, 24.
    64
    Compl. ¶¶ 24, 40.
    65
    Compl. ¶¶ 35–36.
    66
    Compl. ¶¶ 36–39, 42–45.
    67
    Compl. ¶ 46.
    17
    Dauman, Sumner Redstone’s designated CEO, to assume the role of Chairman of
    Viacom. 68 Ms. Redstone was the only Viacom Board member to oppose the move.69
    Soon after Sumner Redstone’s withdrawal from Viacom and CBS,
    Ms. Redstone began to whittle away at the governance protections her father had
    installed. 70 She removed Dauman from the NAI Board and as trustee of the Trust;
    she removed George Abrams, a longtime friend of both Sumner Redstone and
    Dauman, as trustee of the Trust; and she replaced both with trustees of her
    choosing. 71
    Sensing Ms. Redstone may next turn her focus to Viacom, the Viacom Board
    sent a letter to NAI on May 30, 2016, in which it emphasized that “attempts to
    remove Viacom directors from the board ‘would be completely inconsistent with
    Sumner’s lifetime commitment to an independent board and professional
    management for Viacom after his incapacity or death.’” 72            Now under
    Ms. Redstone’s control, NAI responded two weeks later by issuing a written consent
    that purported to amend Viacom’s bylaws to allow stockholders to fill vacancies on
    68
    Compl. ¶¶ 47–48.
    69
    Compl. ¶ 48.
    70
    Compl. ¶¶ 49–56.
    71
    Compl. ¶¶ 49, 50.
    72
    Compl. ¶ 51.
    18
    the Viacom Board directly. 73 NAI then promptly exercised this newly created
    authority by removing five of eleven directors on the Viacom Board.                 Not
    coincidentally, the five removed directors included Dauman, Abrams and three
    others who had signed the May 30 letter on behalf of Viacom. 74 NAI unilaterally
    replaced the removed directors with May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman.75
    Apparently recognizing the unsettling circumstances surrounding their appointment,
    NAI agreed to indemnify each of the newly appointed directors for any liability
    arising from their appointments.76 This move proved prescient as litigation related
    to NAI’s ouster of Viacom directors soon erupted on both coasts. 77
    C. The First and Second Merger Attempts
    Shortly after NAI’s unilateral appointment of May, McHale, Nelson and
    Seligman to the Viacom Board, Ms. Redstone and NAI initiated their first attempt
    to cause a Viacom/CBS merger. 78 In September 2016, NAI sent a letter to both
    73
    Compl. ¶ 52.
    74
    
    Id.
    75
    Compl. ¶¶ 52–54. The fifth replacement director, Kenneth Lerer, is not a party to this
    Action.
    76
    Compl. ¶ 56.
    77
    Compl. ¶¶ 57–58 (noting that the ousted directors sued in Massachusetts and Delaware,
    and NAI counter-sued in California).
    78
    Compl. ¶ 59.
    19
    Viacom and CBS, requesting the two companies consider a combination. 79 In its
    letter, NAI proactively asserted it would not consider any combination or transaction
    that would require it to relinquish control of either company. 80 Viacom entertained
    Ms. Redstone’s demand, establishing the first Viacom special transaction committee
    co-chaired by Seligman and May with McHale, Nelson and two other directors
    comprising the remainder of the committee. 81 This committee retained LionTree
    and Morgan Stanley as its financial advisors in November 2016. 82
    This first attempt at a Viacom/CBS merger never left the starting gate. The
    CBS board of directors (“CBS Board”) refused to discuss a merger if NAI would not
    agree to relinquish its control. And NAI refused to agree to that condition.83
    Apparently recognizing that CBS had no desire to negotiate, NAI withdrew its
    request that the two companies explore a merger on December 12, 2016.84
    Ms. Redstone was not pleased. She advised the CBS Board that “the failure to get
    the deal done had caused Viacom to suffer” and declared her intent to continue to
    79
    
    Id.
    80
    
    Id.
    81
    Compl. ¶ 61.
    82
    Compl. ¶ 62. LionTree and Morgan Stanley remained the Viacom Committee’s advisors
    throughout all three merger attempts. 
    Id.
    83
    Compl. ¶ 64.
    84
    Compl. ¶¶ 63–64.
    20
    pursue the combination, stating “the merger would get done even if I have to use a
    different process.”85
    In the period between the first and second merger attempts, the Viacom Board
    selected Bakish as Viacom’s President, CEO and newest board member. 86 Bakish
    was Ms. Redstone’s choice and she expected him to keep her apprised of all major
    Viacom decisions. 87 With Ms. Redstone’s support, Bakish was able to make
    significant changes at Viacom that substantially improved its financial
    performance. 88
    Ms. Redstone and NAI did not wait long to initiate the second attempt at a
    Viacom/CBS merger, advising both companies in January 2018 that NAI wanted
    their respective boards to re-engage in negotiations.89 Both companies obliged, re-
    constituting their respective special committees within weeks of NAI’s request.90
    For its part, the Viacom Committee’s mandate was “to consider, with the support of
    [NAI], the possibility of a merger or other business combination between [Viacom]
    85
    Compl. ¶ 63 (internal quotations omitted).
    86
    Compl. ¶ 66.
    87
    Compl. ¶ 67.
    88
    Compl. ¶¶ 67–68.
    89
    Compl. ¶ 69.
    90
    Compl. ¶ 70.
    21
    and CBS” and “to propose, review and evaluate, recommend or reject any such
    potential transaction . . . in its sole discretion.” 91 The Viacom Committee was again
    co-chaired by Seligman and May with McHale and Nelson comprising the balance
    of the committee.92 While Seligman and May were co-chairs, Seligman spearheaded
    the negotiations and drove all substantive discussions.93 This version of the Viacom
    Committee remained intact until the consummation of the Merger. 94
    NAI was omnipresent throughout the merger discussions. It was a named
    beneficiary of the Viacom Committee’s confidentiality agreement and received all
    materials.95 Through Ms. Redstone, NAI made clear that it would not agree to a
    majority of the minority condition, and the Viacom Committee, therefore, made no
    effort to negotiate for that protection on behalf of Viacom’s public stockholders.96
    NAI also made clear that the merger consideration would be all stock, that it was
    unwilling to accept a third-party bid for Viacom and that it was unwilling to
    91
    NAI Parties’ Corrected Opening Br. in Supp. of the NAI Parties’ Mot. to Dismiss Pls.’
    Verified Compl. (“NAI OB”) (D.I. 84), Ex. 9 at 2.
    92
    Compl. ¶ 71.
    93
    Compl. ¶ 74.
    94
    Compl. ¶ 71; NAI OB at 24.
    95
    Compl. ¶ 72.
    96
    Compl. ¶¶ 75–76.
    22
    relinquish its control position in either company or in the combined company. 97 The
    Viacom Committee capitulated and early in the process rebuffed interest from a
    third-party due to “the speculative nature of the overture and the risk of [distraction]
    from pursuing the substantial strategic benefits of a transaction between the
    Company and CBS that would be supported by NAI.” 98
    NAI was also quick to express its expectations for governance of the
    combined company, stating that Bakish should “have a substantive position in the
    combined company.” 99        Taking its cue, the Viacom Committee proposed that
    Moonves serve as Chairman and CEO and Bakish as President, COO and board
    member of the combined company. 100 CBS missed the cue and refused to consider
    Bakish for any senior management position.101 The financial press was soon
    reporting that Ms. Redstone had threatened to replace recalcitrant CBS Board
    members. 102
    97
    Compl. ¶ 73.
    98
    Compl. ¶ 77.
    99
    Compl. ¶ 79.
    100
    Compl. ¶ 80.
    101
    Compl. ¶ 81.
    102
    
    Id.
    23
    In the midst of the parties’ rather stark differences on governance, the special
    committees initiated the negotiation of financial terms. At the outset, the offers and
    counters were far apart. To bridge the gap, Viacom provided CBS with its long-
    range projections for fiscal years 2018 through 2021 (the “2018 LRPs”).103 The
    2018 LRPs were prepared by Viacom management in the ordinary course and
    management was confident they were “achievable.”104 The CBS special committee
    did not share that optimism and that informed its negotiations with respect to the
    exchange ratio. 105
    On “the assumption of no role for Robert Bakish in the management of the
    combined company,” the special committees eventually settled upon an exchange
    ratio of 0.6135. 106 This implied a valuation of ⁓$12.8 billion for Viacom, well below
    the $13.7 billion valuation implied by the Viacom Committee’s initial offer.107
    Recognizing Ms. Redstone’s ultimate control over the process, the Viacom
    Committee, following Seligman’s lead, unanimously agreed to advise CBS that it
    should address any concerns regarding “board composition matters” with NAI
    103
    Compl. ¶ 86.
    104
    Compl. ¶ 89.
    105
    Compl. ¶ 90.
    106
    Compl. ¶ 91.
    107
    
    Id.
    24
    directly. 108 Unwilling to bypass the Viacom Committee and negotiate directly with
    Ms. Redstone, the CBS special committee broke off negotiations and announced its
    view that the merger would not be in the best interest of CBS or its minority
    stockholders.109
    Litigation ensued between CBS and NAI. CBS feared retributive action by
    NAI—likely spurred by NAI’s unilateral removal of Viacom directors with whom it
    disagreed in June of 2016.110 In a preemptive strike, CBS attempted to dilute NAI’s
    voting control by issuing a special dividend of voting Class A shares to all
    stockholders.111 CBS then filed suit in this court seeking a temporary restraining
    order that would, among other things, prevent NAI from altering the composition of
    the CBS Board and prevent NAI from interfering with the special dividend. 112 In its
    riposte, NAI executed written consents that essentially required its approval for any
    108
    Compl. ¶¶ 92–93.
    109
    Compl. ¶¶ 94–98.
    110
    Compl. ¶¶ 99–100.
    111
    Compl. ¶¶ 49–58, 99–106.
    112
    Compl. ¶¶ 102–06.
    25
    amendments to CBS’s bylaws. 113 It then counter-sued for a declaration that CBS’s
    effort to strip NAI of voting control was invalid. 114
    The parties ultimately settled the 2018 litigation when issues surfaced
    regarding Moonves’ fitness to remain as CBS’s CEO. 115 After the dust settled, the
    special dividend was rescinded, NAI’s consents were withdrawn, Moonves and
    several CBS directors had departed CBS and NAI gained greater control over the
    CBS Board.116 Importantly, as part of the settlement, Ms. Redstone agreed “not [to]
    propose a CBS-Viacom merger for two years.”117
    D. The Third and Final Merger Attempt
    With the Viacom and CBS boards now primed with NAI allies, NAI and
    Ms. Redstone’s third and final attempt to prompt a Viacom/CBS merger came in
    early 2019.118 Notwithstanding her commitment in the 2018 settlement stipulation
    to take a rest from her campaign to cause a Viacom/CBS merger for two years,
    Ms. Redstone was already encouraging CBS interim CEO, Joseph Ianniello, to press
    113
    Compl. ¶¶ 103–06.
    114
    Compl. ¶ 105.
    115
    Compl. ¶ 107.
    116
    Compl. ¶¶ 107–12.
    117
    Compl. ¶¶ 112.
    118
    Compl. ¶¶ 113–14.
    26
    for a merger by late 2018 and again in early 2019. 119 The CBS Board began
    preliminary internal discussions about a possible merger in March 2019. 120 While
    the CBS Board initially thought it best to condition any merger on a majority of the
    minority vote, that plan was promptly scuttled when counsel for NAI made it clear
    that NAI would never agree to that condition.121 With the knowledge that NAI
    “had already determined the negotiation framework,” the CBS Board formed its
    special committee on April 7, 2019. 122
    Four days later, on April 11, Ianniello contacted Bakish to “restart” merger
    discussions between CBS and Viacom. 123 In response, Bakish advised Ianniello that
    Viacom’s previously engaged financial advisors would “engage in further
    discussions to consider potential terms for a transaction and to conduct due
    diligence.”124 The Viacom Committee had never disbanded and was promptly
    119
    Compl. ¶ 113.
    120
    Compl. ¶ 115.
    121
    Compl. ¶¶ 115–18.
    122
    Compl. ¶¶ 117–18.
    123
    Compl. ¶ 119.
    124
    
    Id.
    27
    reignited to “pick[] up where they left off before the CBS rebellion and [the]
    Moonves [departure].” 125
    Viacom’s position appeared strong entering into negotiations principally
    because its financial performance had significantly improved since the prior merger
    negotiations with CBS had broken off.126 CBS’s financial position, on the other
    hand, had declined. 127       Given the strength of Viacom’s position, the Viacom
    Committee initially planned to focus negotiations on the exchange ratio before
    turning to governance issues for the combined company. 128 This plan was scuttled,
    however, when the Viacom Committee realized that NAI expected to nail down
    “governance and board items” in connection with the Merger as predicates to
    agreeing to a deal.129
    CBS apparently understood the importance of governance issues to Viacom
    and, by extension, to NAI. Thus, when the Viacom Committee proffered the 2018
    exchange ratio as a floor for the exchange ratio negotiations, CBS retorted that
    “the prior ratio was ‘irrelevant to the current negotiations,’ partially because of
    125
    Compl. ¶ 120.
    126
    Compl. ¶¶ 126–39.
    127
    Compl. ¶¶ 140–47, 152–66.
    128
    Compl. ¶ 167.
    129
    
    Id.
    28
    ‘differences in the proposed governance terms of the currently proposed transaction
    as compared with the proposed governance terms’ in the 2018 transaction.”130
    The principal “difference” referenced by CBS was NAI and Ms. Redstone’s
    insistence that Bakish, Ms. Redstone’s “loyal Viacom CEO,” serve not only on the
    board but also as CEO of the combined company. 131
    Bakish met with the CBS special committee in July 2019 to discuss its
    concerns with NAI’s (and Viacom’s) governance demands.132               Sensing how
    important these demands were to NAI, the CBS special committee informed Bakish
    that the parties would have to agree on governance and management matters before
    turning to the negotiation of the exchange ratio.133 Bakish relayed these discussions
    to the Viacom Committee, reiterating the unavoidable divergence of fulfilling NAI’s
    governance demands and maximizing Viacom stockholder value—a trade-off that
    ultimately favored NAI and Ms. Redstone.134
    On August 12, 2019, the parties settled upon a governance structure to NAI
    and Ms. Redstone’s liking: a combined board of six former CBS directors, four
    130
    Compl. ¶ 181.
    131
    Compl. ¶¶ 4, 182–85.
    132
    Compl. ¶ 184.
    133
    
    Id.
    134
    Compl. ¶¶ 185, 195–96.
    29
    former Viacom directors and three NAI designees, with Ms. Redstone as Chair and
    Bakish as board member and CEO. 135 In exchange for this governance structure, the
    parties agreed to an exchange ratio of 0.59625, valuing Viacom at $11.9 billion.
    This was ~$1 billion less than the Viacom stockholders would have received had the
    merger been consummated at the 2018 exchange ratio.136 The Merger closed on
    December 4, 2019.
    E. Procedural History
    On November 25, 2019, the first of several lawsuits challenging the Merger
    was filed on behalf of Viacom stockholders in this Court. 137 On January 23, 2020,
    the Court consolidated the actions and, on February 6, 2020, selected lead plaintiffs
    and lead counsel.138 Plaintiffs then filed their operative Complaint on February 28,
    2020. 139
    The Complaint asserts three direct claims. Count I asserts a claim for breach
    of fiduciary duty against the NAI Parties as controlling stockholder of Viacom for
    135
    Compl. ¶¶ 195–96.
    136
    Compl. ¶¶ 193, 214.
    137
    See, e.g., Verified Class Action Compl. (D.I. 1).
    138
    D.I. 18, 40.
    139
    D.I. 41.
    30
    causing Viacom to consummate a demonstrably conflicted and unfair Merger.140
    Count II asserts claims against the Viacom Committee Defendants for breach of
    fiduciary duty “by preferring Ms. Redstone’s dream to combine Viacom and CBS
    and governance demands over the rights of nonaffiliated stockholders and
    subsequently approving an exchange ratio that deprived Viacom stockholders of fair
    value.”141 Count III asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Bakish, in
    his capacity as officer, for “pursuing self-enrichment as the chief executive of
    ViacomCBS over the interests of Viacom stockholders.” 142
    Each of the Defendants have separately moved to dismiss the Complaint.143
    This decision resolves all pending motions.
    II. ANALYSIS
    The standard for deciding a motion to dismiss under Court of Chancery
    Rule 12(b)(6) is well-settled:
    all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true; (ii) even vague
    allegations are “well-pleaded” if they give the opposing party notice of
    the claim; (iii) the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor
    of the non-moving party; and (iv) dismissal is inappropriate unless the
    140
    Compl. ¶¶ 230–35.
    141
    Compl. ¶¶ 236–39.
    142
    Compl. ¶¶ 240–44.
    143
    Defs. May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman’s Mot. to Dismiss (D.I. 45); NAI Defs.’ Mot.
    to Dismiss (D.I. 46); Def. Bakish’s Mot. to Dismiss (D.I. 47).
    31
    plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably
    conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. 144
    Defendants’ motions to dismiss present the gating question that frequently
    dictates the pleadings stage disposition of breach of fiduciary duty claims: under
    what standard of review will the court adjudicate the claim? As this court has
    observed:
    If the court reviews the fiduciary conduct under the deferential business
    judgment rule, the claim is unlikely to proceed beyond the proverbial
    starting line. If, on the other hand, the court reviews the conduct under
    the entire fairness standard, the claim is likely to proceed at least
    through discovery, if not trial. Given the high stakes and costs of
    corporate fiduciary duty litigation, defendants understandably are prone
    to call the “standard of review” question at the earliest opportunity,
    usually at the pleadings stage.145
    Appreciating the pleading stage implications of the standard of review
    designation, Plaintiffs proffer entire fairness as the applicable standard, 146 while
    Defendants maintain that business judgment rule deference is mandated by
    Plaintiffs’ pled facts. As explained below, I am satisfied Plaintiffs have well-pled
    that a conflicted controlling stockholder stood on both sides of the Merger. Having
    done so, Plaintiffs have implicated entire fairness review, at least at this stage of the
    144
    Savor, Inc., 
    812 A.2d at
    896–97 (citation omitted).
    145
    Tornetta, 
    2019 WL 4566943
    , at *1.
    146
    See Orman, 
    794 A.2d at
    20 n.36 (application of entire fairness “normally will preclude
    dismissal of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss”).
    32
    proceedings, with respect to their claims against the NAI Parties. They have also
    pled facts that allow a reasonable inference that the Viacom Committee Defendants
    acted in deference, and out of loyalty, to Ms. Redstone in a manner detrimental to
    Viacom’s minority stockholders. Thus, Plaintiffs have pled viable claims against
    the NAI Parties and viable, non-exculpated claims against the Viacom Committee
    Defendants that are not susceptible to dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. As for
    the claims against Bakish, however, there are no well-pled allegations that Bakish
    did anything wrong with respect to the Merger regardless of the applicable standard
    of review. The claim against him, therefore, must be dismissed.
    A. The Complaint Well-Pleads Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against
    the NAI Parties (Count I)
    Because a controlling stockholder “occupies a uniquely advantageous
    position for extracting differential benefits from the corporation at the expense of
    minority stockholders,” our law has long recognized that it is right to impose upon
    the controller the fiduciary duty of loyalty and good faith running to the corporation
    and its other stockholders.147 That fiduciary duty, reflecting the standard of conduct
    147
    In re EZcorp Inc. Consulting Agreement Deriv. Litig., 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *11
    (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2016) (citing The Delaware Way, at 678).
    33
    expected of the controller, is to be distinguished from the standard of review by
    which the court tests whether the fiduciary has met the standard of conduct.148
    While the controller always owes fiduciary duties, the standard of review by
    which to test whether the controller has fulfilled those duties is not constant.
    The presence of a controller in the midst of a corporate transaction, without more,
    does “not automatically subject [the controller’s conduct] to entire fairness
    review. . . .” 149 Rather, the court cannot determine the standard of review until it
    assesses whether the controller engaged in a “conflicted transaction.”150
    As a general matter, under our law, a controller engages in a “conflicted
    transaction” when (1) “the controller stands on both sides”; or (2) “the controller
    competes with the common stockholders for consideration.”151 The controller will
    be deemed to “compete with common stockholders for consideration” when the
    controller (1) “receives greater monetary consideration for its shares than the
    148
    Glidepath Ltd. v. Beumer Corp., 
    2019 WL 855660
    , at *18 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2019).
    149
    IRA Tr. FBO Bobbie Ahmed v. Crane, 
    2017 WL 7053964
    , at *6 (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2017,
    revised Jan. 26, 2018); see also In re Crimson Expl. Inc. S’holder Litig., 
    2014 WL 5449419
    ,
    at *12 (Del. Ch. Oct. 24, 2014) (“Entire fairness is not triggered solely because a company
    has a controlling stockholder.”).
    150
    Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *12.
    151
    Id.; see also Larkin v. Shah, 
    2016 WL 4485447
    , at *8 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2016)
    (“Conflicted transactions include those in which the controller stands on both sides of the
    deal (for example, when a parent acquires its subsidiary), as well as those in which the
    controller stands on only one side of the deal but ‘competes with the common stockholders
    for consideration.’”).
    34
    minority stockholders”; (2) “takes a different form of consideration than the
    minority stockholders”; or (3) “gets a unique benefit by extracting something
    uniquely valuable to the controller, even if the controller nominally receives the
    same consideration as all other stockholders.”152 Under any of these scenarios, the
    controller’s conduct will be tested for entire fairness, “the highest standard of review
    in corporate law.” 153 In the merger context, where the controller engages in a
    conflicted transaction, entire fairness applies “as a substitute for the dual statutory
    protections of disinterested board and stockholder approval, because both
    protections are potentially undermined by the influence of the controller.” 154
    The parties here agree on three basic facts that drive the ensuing discussion.
    First, NAI was the controlling stockholder of both Viacom and CBS, holding slightly
    more than 80% of the voting power in each entity. 155 Second, in the Merger, NAI
    “stood on both sides.”156 And third, the Viacom Committee did not negotiate for the
    152
    IRA Tr., 
    2017 WL 7053964
    , at *6 (internal quotations omitted).
    153
    Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *9.
    154
    
    Id.
    155
    See Compl. ¶ 24; see also In re KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC S’holder Litig., 
    101 A.3d 980
    ,
    991 (Del. Ch. 2014) (describing “two scenarios in which a stockholder could be found a
    controller under Delaware law: where the stockholder (1) owns more than 50% of the
    voting power of a corporation or (2) owns less than 50% of the voting power of the
    corporation but ‘exercises control over the business affairs of the corporation’”) (emphasis
    in original).
    156
    Compl. ¶ 24; Larkin, 
    2016 WL 4485447
    , at *8.
    35
    so-called MFW “dual protections” that, if properly executed, would have triggered
    business judgment rule review of breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the
    Merger. 157 From here, the parties part ways.
    Plaintiffs maintain that, following the seminal Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., it has
    long been settled in Delaware that, “where one stands on both sides of a transaction,
    he has the burden of establishing its entire fairness, sufficient to pass the test of
    careful scrutiny by the courts.”158 According to Plaintiffs, since NAI indisputably
    stood on both sides of the Merger, entire fairness is the applicable standard of review.
    Hard stop.
    With equal fervency, Defendants counter that our law is settled that “mere
    presence” of the controller on both sides of a transaction is not enough to trigger
    entire fairness review. Citing the seminal Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien, 159 Defendants
    maintain that “[t]he basic situation for the application of the [entire fairness] rule is
    the one in which the [controller] has received a benefit to the exclusion and at the
    expense of the [minority].” 160 According to Defendants, since Plaintiffs have failed
    to do more than allege the mere presence of the NAI Parties on both sides of the
    157
    MFW, 
    88 A.3d at 644
    .
    158
    
    457 A.2d at 710
    .
    159
    
    280 A.2d 717
     (Del. 1971).
    160
    
    Id. at 720
    .
    36
    Merger, and, in particular have failed to allege that the NAI Parties received any
    benefit “to the exclusion and at the expense” of the Viacom minority stockholders,
    entire fairness review has no place here.
    That highly experienced and highly competent corporate litigators have such
    a fundamentally disparate view of supposedly “settled” Delaware corporate law is
    either surprising, or not at all surprising, depending upon one’s perspective on the
    role of zealous advocates. 161 Surprising or not, the disconnect is, if nothing else,
    provocative and worthy of further exploration. Ultimately, as explained below,
    because I find Plaintiffs have well pled the Merger was a “conflicted transaction”
    beyond NAI’s presence on both sides, I acknowledge that the following discussion
    of the “mere presence” debate, unabashedly, straddles the line between obiter dicta
    161
    Speaking of zealous advocacy, in an interesting twist, NAI acknowledged in the 2018
    CBS litigation that its decision not to commit up front to a majority-of-the-minority vote
    condition in connection with the proposed 2018 Viacom/CBS merger was not indicative of
    wrongdoing but simply meant that “any transaction would therefore be subject to ‘entire
    fairness’ review.” Compl. ¶ 5 (quoting paragraph 5 of NAI’s complaint in In re CBS Corp.
    Litig., C.A. No. 2018-0342-AGB) (emphasis added). Because it is not necessary, I decline
    Plaintiffs’ request that I engage in a judicial estoppel analysis based on this “admission”
    by NAI in prior litigation.
    37
    and judicial dicta. 162 As the dispute may become relevant later in this litigation,
    however, it is appropriate to frame the debate and share some observations. 163
    The “Mere Presence” Debate
    Plaintiffs quote Weinberger correctly; our Supreme Court there clearly stated,
    “where one stands on both sides of a transaction, he has the burden of establishing
    its entire fairness, sufficient to pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts.”164
    Two years later, in Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil, when determining the standard of review
    by which to test a controller’s compliance with fiduciary duties, the court observed:
    “Clearly, Getty, as majority shareholder of Skelly, stood on both sides of this
    transaction and bore the initial burden of establishing its entire fairness.”165
    The court did not ask whether the controller who “stood on both sides” engaged in
    self-dealing or received a non-ratable benefit from the transaction; instead, the court
    162
    See Wild Meadows MHC, LLC v. Weidman, 
    2020 WL 3889057
    , at *7 (Del. Super. Ct.
    July 10, 2020) (offering a useful distinction between obiter dicta, or “by the way”
    comments of the court when rendering a decision, and “judicial dictum,” or “expressions
    of opinion [by the court] upon a point in a case argued by counsel and deliberately passed
    upon . . . though not essential to the disposition of the cause”).
    163
    I say the debate may become relevant down the road because if Plaintiffs are unable to
    secure evidence in support of their allegations that the NAI Parties secured non-ratable
    benefits from the Merger not shared by Viacom stockholders, Plaintiffs likely, and
    understandably, will revert to their “mere presence” argument in urging the Court to
    continue to review the NAI Parties’ fiduciary conduct for entire fairness.
    164
    
    457 A.2d at 710
    .
    165
    Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., 
    493 A.2d 929
    , 937 (Del. 1985).
    38
    noted the controller’s presence “on both sides” and then declared that entire fairness
    was the standard of review. 166
    In his important and oft-cited decision in Citron v. E.I. DuPont de
    Nemours & Co., then-Vice Chancellor Jacobs provided a clear explanation of why a
    controlling stockholder standing on both sides of the transaction should trigger “the
    more stringent entire fairness standard of judicial review.”167 There, DuPont owned
    69.54% of Remington’s stock and sought to squeeze-out the minority by merger.
    In this context, the court noted, “[i]t is undisputed that DuPont, as the majority
    stockholder standing on both sides of the transaction, would normally have the
    burden to prove that the merger was entirely fair.” 168 In setting entire fairness as the
    standard of review, the court observed that, in transactions where the controller
    stands on both sides, the transaction is “proposed by a party that controls, and will
    continue to control, the corporation,” and in such instances, the “controlling
    stockholder relationship has the inherent potential to influence, however subtly, the
    166
    The principle was reaffirmed two years later in Bershad v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.,
    
    535 A.2d 840
    , 845 (Del. 1987), where the court held: “When a majority shareholder stands
    on both sides of a transaction, the requirement of fairness is ‘unflinching’ in its demand
    that the controlling stockholder establish the entire fairness of the undertaking sufficient to
    pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts.”
    167
    
    584 A.2d 490
    , 502 (Del. Ch. 1990).
    168
    
    Id.
    39
    vote of minority stockholders in a manner that is not likely to occur in a transaction
    with a noncontrolling party.” 169
    Then-Vice Chancellor Strine described the risk of coercion when the
    controller stands on both sides more colorfully in In re Pure Resources:
    In colloquial terms, the Supreme Court [in Kahn v. Lynch
    Communication Systems, Inc.] saw the controlling stockholder as the
    800–pound gorilla whose urgent hunger for the rest of the bananas is
    likely to frighten less powerful primates like putatively independent
    directors who might well have been hand-picked by the gorilla
    (and who at the very least owed their seats on the board to his
    support).170
    169
    
    Id.
     (further explaining that “[e]ven where no coercion is intended,” the presence of the
    controller on both sides may unduly influence the progression of the transaction in a
    manner that differs from what would result from arms-length bargaining); see also 
    id.
    (noting that “no court could be certain whether the transaction terms fully approximate
    what truly independent parties would have achieved in an arm’s length negotiation”);
    Kahn v. Tremont Corp., 
    694 A.2d 422
    , 428–29 (Del. 1997) (“Tremont II”) (“The risk is
    thus created that those who pass upon the propriety of the transaction might perceive that
    disapproval may result in retaliation by the controlling shareholder.”); Larkin, 
    2016 WL 4485447
    , at *9 (“[C]ases where the controller stands on both sides of the transaction
    present a particularly compelling reason to apply entire fairness: both corporate decision-
    making bodies to which Delaware courts ardently defer—the board of directors and
    disinterested voting stockholders—are considered compromised by the controller’s
    influence.”).
    170
    In re Pure Res., Inc., S’holders Litig., 
    808 A.2d 421
    , 436 (Del. Ch. 2002) (citing Kahn v.
    Lynch Commc’n Sys., Inc., 
    638 A.2d 1110
     (Del. 1994)); see also In re Tesla Motors, Inc.,
    
    2020 WL 553902
    , at *6 (Del. Ch. Feb. 4, 2020) (“And, as an ‘800-pound gorilla’ in the
    board room and at the ballot box, the controller has retributive capacities that lead our
    courts to question whether independent directors or voting shareholders can freely exercise
    their judgment in approving transactions sponsored by the controller.”); id. at *7
    (noting that applying entire fairness review to transactions where controllers stand on both
    sides “is simply a recognition that because conflicted controller transactions have such
    strong potential for self-dealing, absent replication of an arm’s-length transaction process,
    an independent judge should thoroughly examine the transaction’s substantive fairness”).
    40
    One can draw from this observation an appreciation that the dynamic created by the
    “mere presence” of the controller on both sides of a transaction is one of inherent
    coercion that even putatively independent directors will struggle to resist. 171
    The “mere presence” rule Plaintiffs endorse appears to have been stated most
    directly by our Supreme Court in Emerald Partners v. Berlin where, in setting the
    standard of review, the court held, “[the controller’s] stance on both sides as a
    corporate fiduciary, alone, is sufficient to require the demonstration of entire
    fairness.”172 Here again, in stating this rule, the court said nothing of the controller
    competing with the minority for consideration or otherwise deriving non-ratable
    benefits from the challenged transaction.
    For their part, Defendants, and in particular the NAI Parties, accurately quote
    Sinclair, where, to reiterate, the court held, “[t]he basic situation for the application
    of the [entire fairness] rule is the one in which the [controller] has received a benefit
    171
    See In re USG Corp. S’holder Litig., 
    2020 WL 5126671
    , at *13 (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2020)
    (citations omitted) (observing, “the mere presence of a controller [on one side of a
    transaction] does not trigger entire fairness per se. Rather, coercion is assumed, and entire
    fairness invoked, when the controller engages in a conflicted transaction, which occurs
    when a controller sits on both sides of the transaction, or is on only one side but ‘competes
    with the common stockholders for consideration.’”).
    172
    
    726 A.2d 1215
    , 1221 n.8 (Del. 1999) (emphasis added). Accord Orman, 
    794 A.2d at
    21
    n.36 (clarifying that Emerald Partners “reiterated that entire fairness review applies when
    a controlling shareholder stands on both sides of a challenged transaction”).
    41
    to the exclusion and at the expense of the [minority].” 173 In keeping with this “basic”
    pronouncement, the NAI Parties maintain that in each instance where a Delaware
    court has observed that a controller’s presence on both sides of a transaction will
    trigger entire fairness review, there is always something more that causes the court
    to conclude that the controller is conflicted.
    For example, in In re Southern Peru, the court appeared to cabin the entire
    fairness implications of the controller “standing on both sides of the transaction” to
    instances where the controller operates under some other “conflicting self-
    interest.” 174 In In re CNX Gas Corporation Shareholders Litigation, the court noted
    that entire fairness “will be applied only when the fiduciary duty is accompanied by
    self-dealing—the situation when a parent is on both sides of a transaction with its
    subsidiary.”175 Indeed, the NAI Parties note that each “controller on both sides”
    case cited by Plaintiffs involves either some variant of a parent-subsidiary
    transaction where, by definition, the parent is interested in receiving the best
    173
    Sinclair, 
    280 A.2d at 720
    .
    174
    In re Southern Peru Copper Corp. S’holder Deriv. Litig., 
    52 A.3d 761
    , 787 (Del. Ch.
    2011), aff’d sub nom. Ams. Mining Corp. v. Theriault, 
    51 A.3d 1213
     (Del. 2012).
    175
    
    4 A.3d 397
    , 411 (Del. Ch. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Sinclair, 
    280 A.2d at 720
    ).
    42
    financial deal for itself regardless of the will of the minority, 176 or some other flavor
    of controller self-interest. 177 It is not surprising, say the NAI Parties, that Plaintiffs
    can point to no Delaware case where the court reviewed the controller’s conduct for
    entire fairness where all the plaintiff had alleged was that the controller stood on
    both sides of a transaction.
    The NAI Parties are right to seize upon nuance. The rules stated in the judicial
    decisions that comprise our common law are driven by the facts of the cases in which
    the rules are stated. As Chancellor Chandler has explained, “the opinions of the
    Court of Chancery [are] akin to parables; that is, they read like morality stories
    describing the behavior of directors and managers, both the good behavior and the
    bad.” 178 These “parables” tell stories, for sure, but they also draw “road maps” with
    rule statements, prompted by the stories, that serve both to adjudicate the discreet
    dispute and provide future guidance for other fiduciaries regarding “what is expected
    176
    The NAI Parties point out that even Weinberger, Plaintiffs’ favorite case, involved a
    parent company cash-out of a subsidiary’s minority stockholders on unfair terms.
    Weinberger, 
    457 A.2d at 703
    .
    177
    In re Tesla Motors, Inc. S’holder Litig., 
    2018 WL 1560293
    , at *2 (Del. Ch. Mar. 18,
    2018) (“Tesla I”) (involving a controller allegedly causing one controlled company to
    “bailout” another controlled company that was failing by acquiring the failing company at
    an unfair price); In re BGC P’rs, Inc., 
    2019 WL 4745121
     (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2019) (same);
    Southern Peru, 
    52 A.3d at 787
     (same).
    178
    William B. Chandler III, Our National Challenge: A Blueprint for Restoring the Public
    Trust, 
    6 U. St. Thomas L.J. 421
    , 423 (Winter 2009).
    43
    of them” under our law. 179 The rule statements, of course, must be considered
    against the nuance of the facts that prompted them.
    On the other hand, Delaware courts can be trusted to say what they mean and
    mean what they say. This is true in all areas, but perhaps more so when our courts
    are adding to the canon of our corporate law, a law that prospectively guides the
    conduct of countless corporate fiduciaries and is “often follow[ed]” by other
    jurisdictions.180 With this in mind, it is difficult to escape the clarity with which the
    Supreme Court stated the “presence on both sides” rule in Emerald Partners: “[the
    controller’s] stance on both sides as a corporate fiduciary, alone, is sufficient to
    require the demonstration of entire fairness.” 181 While Emerald Partners, itself, may
    be laced with factual nuance, the rule, as stated there, leaves little, if any, room for
    nuance. 182 And that rule appears to comport with the “mere presence” argument
    Plaintiffs advance here. 183
    179
    
    Id.
    180
    Jens Dammann & Henry Hansmann, Globalizing Commercial Litigation, 
    94 Cornell L. Rev. 1
    , 17 (Nov. 2008).
    181
    Emerald P’rs, 
    726 A.2d at
    1221 n.8 (emphasis added).
    182
    For instance, I acknowledge that the controller in Emerald Partners was alleged to have
    pursued mergers of controlled companies as a means to rescue several real estate firms
    owned by the controller and his family. 
    Id. at 1218
    .
    183
    I note that Viacom and CBS’s dual-class structures, whereby NAI possessed more than
    80% of the voting power but faced only 10% of the economic risk in both companies,
    commends Plaintiffs’ “mere presence” argument for careful consideration in this case.
    See David T. White, Delaware’s Role in Handling the Rise of Dual-, Multi-, and Zero-
    44
    As I admitted at the outset of this discussion, the parties’ “mere presence”
    debate is interesting and may well prove relevant down the road, but for now, I need
    not declare a winner. As explained below, Plaintiffs have pled more than NAI’s
    mere presence on both sides of the Merger.               They have also well-pled that
    Ms. Redstone received a non-ratable benefit from the Merger at the expense of
    Viacom’s minority stockholders.
    The Non-Ratable Benefit
    There can be no credible debate that entire fairness review is triggered when
    the controlling stockholder “compete[s] with other stockholders for consideration or
    otherwise receive[s] a non-ratable benefit at the expense of minority
    shareholders.”184 A non-ratable benefit exists when the controller receives a “unique
    Class Voting Structures, 
    45 Del. J. Corp. L. 141
    , 153–54 (2020) (positing that in dual-class
    structures, “the owners of the majority voting rights in these companies are less concerned
    when riskier moves fail as compared to their counterparts at ‘one share-one vote’
    corporations”); Lucian A. Bebchuk & Kobi Kastiel, The Perils of Small-Minority
    Controllers, 
    107 Geo. L.J. 1453
    , 1466 (2019) (observing that “small-minority controllers
    are insulated from market disciplinary forces [in dual-class companies] and thus lack
    incentives generated by the threat of replacement, which would mitigate the risk that they
    will act in ways that are contrary to the interests of other public investors”); 
    id.
     (“[D]ual-
    class structures with small-minority controllers generate significant governance risks
    because they feature a unique absence of incentive alignment.”).
    184
    NAI OB at 32 (citing Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *12); see also In re Primedia, Inc.
    S’holders Litig., 
    67 A.3d 455
    , 486 (Del. Ch. 2013) (“When a corporation with a controlling
    stockholder is sold to a third party, the entire fairness standard applies if the controlling
    stockholder receives a benefit not shared with the minority.”); EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    ,
    at *11 (“A controlling stockholder occupies a uniquely advantageous position for
    45
    benefit by extracting something uniquely valuable to the controller, even if the
    controller nominally receives the same consideration as all other stockholders.”185
    While the parties appear to agree that this court has had no cause to apply the non-
    ratable framework in the merger context where the controller stands on both sides of
    the transaction but receives the same consideration as all other stockholders, I can
    discern no reason why the controller should not be obliged to prove that the merger
    was entirely fair when the controller ostensibly receives the same merger
    consideration as other stockholders but also receives a non-ratable benefit to the
    detriment of the minority.
    According to the NAI Parties, there are only two scenarios where a controller
    can be deemed to have achieved a non-ratable benefit from a transaction when all
    stockholders, controlling and minority alike, receive the same consideration: “(a) the
    controller eliminates something bad for it and good for the minority, as in the
    elimination of the derivative claims in Primedia; or (b) all parties suffer a sub-
    optimal price, but the controller still benefits because it receives cash to satisfy an
    extracting differential benefits from the corporation at the expense of minority
    stockholders.”).
    185
    IRA Tr., 
    2017 WL 7053964
    , at *7 (internal quotations omitted); Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *12–14.
    46
    idiosyncratic liquidity problem, as in infoGROUP.” 186 To be sure, both scenarios
    implicate the non-ratable benefit problem for the controller even when she receives
    the same financial consideration from the transaction received by the minority.
    In this regard, Primedia and infoGROUP reflect that, as Chancellor Allen so aptly
    stated, financial “[g]reed is not the only human emotion that can pull one from the
    path of propriety; so might hatred, lust, envy, revenge, . . . shame or pride. Indeed
    any human emotion may cause a [fiduciary] to place [her] own interests, preferences
    or appetites before the welfare of the corporation.” 187 That same sensibility was on
    full display in IRA Trust FBO Bobbie Ahmed v. Crane, a case that offers useful
    guidance here and illustrates a third instance where non-ratable benefits from a
    transaction flowing to the controller can justify entire fairness review even when the
    controller ostensibly receives the same consideration as the minority. 188
    In Crane, a controlling stockholder with 55% voting power feared dilution of
    its voting control in future transactions. 189 To address this concern, the controller
    sought to implement a recapitalization whereby all stockholders holding voting
    186
    NAI OB at 43 (citing Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *20, which in turn cites, Primedia,
    
    67 A.3d 455
     and N.J. Carpenters Pension Fund v. infoGROUP, Inc., 
    2011 WL 4825888
    (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2011)).
    187
    In re RJR Nabisco, Inc. S’holder Litig., 
    1989 WL 7036
    , at *15 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 1989).
    188
    
    2017 WL 7053964
     (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2017, revised Jan. 26, 2018).
    189
    
    Id.
     at *3–4.
    47
    stock, including the controller, would receive a single non-voting share for each of
    their voting shares. 190 Minority stockholders understandably were displeased with
    the resulting recapitalization and challenged the transaction. In reviewing the
    viability of Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim on a motion to dismiss, the
    court found the existence of a non-ratable benefit that justified entire fairness review
    because the controller initiated the transaction to perpetuate its control of the
    company. 191        Specifically, the non-ratable benefit was the controller’s ability
    “to ensure it would be able to retain voting control of [the company] well into the
    future without abandoning a key aspect of its original business model . . . .” 192 The
    benefit was not purely economic; it was the perpetuation of control for control’s
    sake. 193
    The Plaintiffs’ well-pled allegations create a reasonable inference that
    Ms. Redstone, through NAI, used the Merger as a means to consolidate her control
    of Viacom and CBS at the expense of the Viacom minority stockholders. According
    190
    Id. at *4.
    191
    Id. at *9.
    192
    Id.
    193
    Id. at *8 (rejecting defendant’s reliance on Sinclair for the proposition that entire
    fairness will not apply to a pro rata dividend paid to all stockholders, instead finding
    “NRG did receive something from Yield to the exclusion of the minority stockholders—
    the means to perpetuate its control position by financing future acquisitions with the low-
    vote Class C stock authorized in the Reclassification”).
    48
    to the Complaint, Ms. Redstone had long desired to combine the media companies
    her father had built in order to consolidate her control of both companies and solidify
    her status as a media mogul.194 Her desire was fueled in 2016 amid concern that
    CBS might agree to be acquired by a large technology company. 195 She tried to push
    through a Viacom/CBS merger then but failed.196 She tried again in 2018 but was
    rebuffed by the CBS Board in spectacular fashion, culminating in that board’s
    desperate attempt to dilute NAI’s voting control over CBS and its initiation of
    litigation to prevent the merger. 197        Two years earlier, in 2016, when the
    194
    Compl. ¶¶ 2–13, 63–64, 69, 98, 197; NAI OB at 49 (“Ms. Redstone achieved her
    desperately desired Merger, designed to build an empire and secure her legacy.”).
    195
    Compl. ¶ 60.
    196
    Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, 59–64.
    197
    Compl. ¶¶ 100–107. In its opening brief, NAI argues that Plaintiffs may not assert facts
    relating to prior transactions in support of their claims here because Viacom released NAI
    from “any and all Claims” arising out of the failed 2016 merger in a settlement agreement
    the parties reached in related litigation. NAI OB at 53. I do not follow this argument.
    Plaintiffs are not bringing claims relating to the transactions that are the subject of the
    release. They are stating facts relating to those transactions to support new claims
    regarding a new transaction. Releases release claims, not facts relating to claims. NAI also
    argues that because Plaintiffs’ allegations here have been lifted wholesale from an old
    complaint, the Court should disregard the allegations as immaterial. NAI OB at 55. But,
    the allegations regarding the NAI Parties’ past conduct are relevant in that, according to
    Plaintiffs, they set the stage for NAI’s actions with respect to the Merger. See Bear Stearns
    Mortg. Funding Tr. 2007-AR2 v. EMC Mortg. LLC, 
    2013 WL 164098
    , at *1 (Del. Ch.
    Jan. 15, 2013) (denying a motion to strike allegations from a complaint that had been lifted
    from a prior complaint addressing events that pre-dated the events giving rise to the
    complaint at issue, noting the allegations of past events served as proper background for
    the dispute sub judice).
    49
    Viacom/CBS merger failed, Ms. Redstone made her displeasure clear to the CBS
    Board, vowing that “the merger would get done even if I have to use a different
    process.”198 She was true to her word in 2019.
    After reshaping the boards of both companies, and in defiance of a stipulation
    not to instigate merger negotiations between them for at least two years,
    Ms. Redstone returned in 2019, whispering in the ears of her compatriots that a
    merger was still a good idea and that they should pursue it.199 In a gesture that
    exposed her true motives, Ms. Redstone insisted that Bakish, then the CEO of
    Viacom and her loyal confederate,200 become the CEO of the combined entity,
    knowing well, given past events, that the CBS special committee would resist and
    seek valuable consideration in return for its capitulation.201 And that is exactly what
    198
    Compl. ¶ 63 (internal quotations omitted).
    199
    Compl. ¶¶ 113–14.
    200
    Compl. ¶ 182. The NAI Parties argue the Complaint fails to well plead Bakish’s
    allegiance to Ms. Redstone. I disagree. The Complaint alleges that, notwithstanding that
    Ms. Redstone had committed to withdraw from any discussions regarding a Viacom/CBS
    merger for two years in the 2018 settlement, Bakish regularly kept her informed of the
    status of negotiations throughout 2019. Compl. ¶ 67. More to the point, whether Bakish
    was, in fact, implacably loyal to Ms. Redstone, the Complaint well pleads that
    Ms. Redstone believed that he was, and acted accordingly. Compl. ¶ 182.
    201
    Compl. ¶¶ 181–83. On this point, the NAI Parties argue it cannot be disputed that
    Bakish performed well as Viacom’s CEO and it is, therefore, not at all surprising or
    problematic that the NAI Parties would push for Bakish to become the CEO of the
    combined company. To be sure, Plaintiffs have acknowledged that, under Bakish’s
    leadership, Viacom performed very well in the months leading up to the Merger.
    Compl. ¶¶ 65–68. Even so, the NAI Parties miss the point of Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary
    claim against them. Plaintiffs allege that by installing a CEO in a combined Viacom/CBS
    50
    happened; the CBS special committee made clear that the exchange ratio agreed to
    in 2018 was off the table given the “differences in the proposed governance terms
    of the currently proposed transaction as compared with the [previously] proposed
    governance terms.” 202 Those governance terms, as pled, largely involved NAI’s
    insistence that Bakish be named CEO of the combined company. The CBS special
    committee viewed this governance term as a “significant concession,” and both deal
    parties came to appreciate that the concession would cost Viacom in the exchange
    ratio.203 Exploiting this leverage, the CBS special committee informed Bakish that
    the negotiation of governance issues would come first before CBS would discuss the
    exchange ratio. 204
    This insistence on Bakish as CEO was Ms. Redstone’s first step in cementing
    a loyal management team in the combined company that would yield to her demands.
    But the consolidation of her control went further. As bargained for, the board of the
    combined company would consist of six former CBS directors, four former Viacom
    to whom she had unfiltered access, and over whom she exercised unfettered control,
    Ms. Redstone and the NAI Parties obtained a benefit from the Merger not enjoyed before
    the Merger and not shared by the other Viacom stockholders—a non-ratable benefit that,
    according to Plaintiffs, cost Viacom stockholders ⁓$1 billion.
    202
    Compl. ¶ 181.
    203
    Compl. ¶ 183.
    204
    Compl. ¶ 184.
    51
    directors and three NAI designees.205 Ultimately, following the horse-trading on
    governance to meet NAI’s demands, the two special committees settled on a
    valuation for Viacom of $11.9 billion, roughly $1 billion less than the same
    committees had agreed to in connection with the scuttled 2018 transaction.206
    NAI’s fixation on consolidated control, where Ms. Redstone maintains both
    the management and board she wants within the combined entity, is precisely the
    strain of controller benefit characterized as non-ratable in Crane. Ms. Redstone was
    concerned about her ability to control both companies, at least practically, if they
    stayed as separate entities. Similarly, in Crane, the controller used the challenged
    recapitalization to “perpetuate its control position” to avoid loss of control at a future
    date. 207 The past actions of the CBS Board make it reasonably conceivable that
    Ms. Redstone was concerned about loss of control; and consolidating the companies
    and installing loyal management and directors would ensure her control position
    would expand and continue.208 Therefore, the Complaint’s well-pled allegations
    205
    Compl. ¶ 195.
    206
    Compl. ¶¶ 9, 216.
    207
    IRA Tr., 
    2017 WL 7053964
    , at *8.
    208
    Importantly, this is not the same thing as “merely preserving the controlling
    stockholder’s preexisting rights.” NAI OB at 42; Robotti & Co., LLC v. Liddell, 
    2010 WL 157474
    , at *10 (Del. Ch. Jan. 14, 2010) (“Although it may seem as though the directors
    therefore received a benefit that did not accrue to the shareholders, this is a result of their
    pre-Offering (and otherwise unchallenged) contractual rights under the option
    agreements.”). Here, NAI’s control rights had been threatened by the CBS Board
    52
    create a reasonable inference that Ms. Redstone received a unique benefit at the
    expense of the minority stockholders, necessitating an entire fairness review of the
    Merger. 209
    3. Plaintiffs Have Well-Pled the Merger Was Not Entirely Fair
    Defendants do not seriously argue that Plaintiffs have failed to well-plead the
    Merger was not entirely fair, and for good reason. The Complaint alleges the NAI
    Parties relentlessly pursued the Viacom/CBS merger over many years, and through
    many roadblocks, including those placed on the road by Viacom and CBS fiduciaries
    who viewed the merger as unfavorable to their stockholders, all to allow Ms.
    Redstone to consolidate control and achieve what her father thought she could not
    achieve. The Viacom Committee proved unable (or unwilling) to overcome the will
    of Viacom’s controller. It did not consider alternative transactions; it did not
    consider walking away when the CBS committee telegraphed that it viewed agreeing
    historically. The consolidation of control in the 2019 Merger was an effort to prevent the
    CBS Board from usurping NAI’s control in the future.
    209
    The NAI Parties’ singular focus on the fact that NAI’s ability to influence Viacom and
    CBS, both as separate entities and as a combined entity, was not altered by the Merger
    ignores the bigger picture drawn by the Complaint. NAI OB at 44. As pled in the
    Complaint, the NAI Parties historically faced obstacles when seeking to exert control over
    the boards of CBS and Viacom. The consolidation of the two boards into one, comprised
    of a majority of directors that were selected by Ms. Redstone, coupled with the selection
    of a CEO for the combined company of Ms. Redstone’s choosing, delivered benefits to the
    NAI Parties not shared by other Viacom stockholders. That the benefits to the NAI Parties
    came at a cost of ⁓$1 billion to Viacom, if proven, places the Merger in the realm of
    conflicted controller transactions that justify entire fairness review.
    53
    to Ms. Redstone’s governance demands as a valuable “concession”; it did not insist
    on protections to neutralize the controller; it did not exploit Viacom’s favorable
    trajectory and CBS’s unfavorable trajectory during negotiations; it agreed to an
    exchange ratio that was significantly less favorable to Viacom stockholders
    (⁓$1 billion less favorable to be precise) than the exchange ratio both parties had
    agreed to when Viacom and CBS explored a merger just one year before; and it
    relied upon flawed market projections, rather than its own management’s internal
    projections, when valuing the transaction. 210 If these facts are true, and they are
    assumed to be at this stage, it is reasonably conceivable the Merger was not entirely
    fair. Thus, the motion to dismiss as to the NAI Parties must be denied.
    B. The Complaint Well-Pleads Non-Exculpated Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    Claims Against the Viacom Committee Defendants (Count II)
    Having determined that the breach of fiduciary claims against the NAI Parties
    are subject to entire fairness review, and that the Complaint well pleads that the
    Merger was not entirely fair, I turn next to the claims against the Viacom Committee
    Defendants. Given that the Merger, at this stage, will be reviewed for entire fairness,
    there is some reflexive appeal to reviewing all claims against all Viacom fiduciaries
    arising out of the Merger under the entire fairness standard.211 But that is not how
    210
    Compl. ¶¶ 201–219.
    211
    See, e.g., In re Radiology Assoc., Inc. Litig., 
    1990 WL 67839
    , at *8 (Del. Ch. May 16,
    1990) (noting that all defendants, controlling stockholders and directors alike, had
    54
    our law works.        As our Supreme Court made clear in In re Cornerstone
    Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, entire fairness review for one does not
    mean entire fairness review for all:
    [T]o require independent directors to remain defendants solely because
    the plaintiffs stated a non-exculpated claim against the controller and
    its affiliates would be inconsistent with Delaware law and would also
    increase costs for disinterested directors, corporations, and
    stockholders, without providing a corresponding benefit. First, this
    Court and the Court of Chancery have emphasized that each director
    has a right to be considered individually when the directors face claims
    for damages in a suit challenging board action. And under Delaware
    corporate law, that individualized consideration does not start with the
    assumption that each director was disloyal; rather, independent
    directors are presumed to be motivated to do their duty with fidelity. . . .
    This Court has [] refused to presume that an independent director is not
    entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule solely because
    the controlling stockholder may itself be subject to liability for breach
    of the duty of loyalty if the transaction was not entirely fair to the
    minority stockholders. 212
    This is particularly so when breach of fiduciary claims against board members, like
    the claims against the Viacom Committee Defendants here, must be reconciled with
    the corporation’s Section 102(b)(7) charter provision.213
    conceded that the entire fairness standard of review applied to all claims of breach of
    fiduciary duty arising out of a cash-out merger initiated by a controlling stockholder).
    212
    In re Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. S’holder Litig., 
    115 A.3d 1173
    , 1182–83
    (Del. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).
    213
    See 
    id. at 1185
     (“Establishing a rule that all directors must remain as parties in litigation
    involving a transaction with a controlling stockholder would thus reduce the benefits that
    the General Assembly anticipated in adopting Section 102(b)(7).”).
    55
    The Complaint alleges the members of the Viacom Committee, May, McHale,
    Nelson and Seligman, breached their fiduciary duties by favoring NAI’s interests
    over those of Viacom’s minority stockholders.214 Here again, Plaintiffs draw heavily
    on Viacom’s history, especially NAI’s dogged attempts to force a Viacom/CBS
    merger over the initial resistance of both companies’ fiduciaries, followed by their
    eventual submission.215 In opposing the Viacom Committee Defendants’ motion to
    dismiss, Plaintiffs urge the Court to consider the “constellation of facts” they have
    pled that attacks the independence (and good faith) of the Viacom Committee
    Defendants on three levels: (1) their “thick” personal relationships with
    Ms. Redstone; (2) their appreciation of, and reaction to, NAI and Ms. Redstone’s
    demonstrated willingness to remove board members who did not march to the NAI
    rataplan; and (3) their failure to operate independently of NAI as reflected in their
    prioritizing Ms. Redstone’s interests in the Merger over those of Viacom’s minority
    stockholders.216 After briefly reviewing the standards governing Plaintiffs’ claims
    against these putatively exculpated Defendants, I address whether each category of
    factual allegations Plaintiffs have proffered to state non-exculpated claims against
    the Viacom Committee Defendants, either separately or collectively, do the job.
    214
    Compl. ¶¶ 236–39.
    215
    Compl. ¶¶ 1–13, 59–112, 116–17, 123–24, 167.
    216
    See generally Pls.’ Answering Br. at 52–66 (D.I. 100).
    56
    To state “a non-exculpated claim for breach of fiduciary duty against an
    independent director protected by an exculpatory charter provision,” Plaintiffs must
    allege “facts supporting a rational inference that the director harbored self-interest
    adverse to the stockholders’ interests, acted to advance the self-interest of an
    interested party from whom they could not be presumed to act independently, or
    acted in bad faith.” 217 Plaintiffs do not allege the members of the Viacom Committee
    harbored some personal interest in the Merger. They do, however, allege the Viacom
    Committee Defendants lacked independence and acted in bad faith with respect to
    the Merger, and either allegation, if well pled, would be adequate to state a non-
    exculpated claim. 218
    “Independent directors are presumed to be motivated to do their duty with
    fidelity.” 219 And each director must be afforded that presumption without regard to
    the conduct of his fellow directors, meaning, “[e]ach director has a right to be
    considered individually when the directors face claims for damages in a suit
    challenging board action.” 220 With that said, if external factors compromise the
    independence or prompt bad faith conduct with respect to every director on a special
    217
    Cornerstone, 
    115 A.3d at
    1179–80.
    218
    
    Id.
    219
    
    Id.
     at 1182–83.
    220
    
    Id. at 1182
    .
    57
    committee equally, and that influence is well pled, it follows that the court need not
    break down director-by-director how the external factor(s) influenced each director.
    With the possibility of exculpation and the presumptions of independence and
    good faith in mind, I consider the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ allegations against each of
    the Viacom Committee Defendants to determine if Plaintiffs have stated legally
    viable claims. For reasons that follow, I am satisfied that they have.
    1. The Personal Relationships
    When considering whether a Complaint states a reasonably conceivable basis
    to question the independence of a fiduciary based on that fiduciary’s personal
    relationship with another fiduciary who has acted improperly for self-interest, the
    court “consider[s] all the particularized facts pled by the plaintiffs about the
    relationships between the director and the interested party in their totality and not in
    isolation from each other, and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the totality of
    those facts in favor of the plaintiffs.”221 In other words, the court must consider
    “the full context of all the [pleaded] facts regarding a director’s relationship to the
    221
    Del. Cty. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Sanchez, 
    124 A.3d 1017
    , 1019 (Del. 2015); see also Sandys
    v. Pincus, 
    152 A.3d 124
    , 128 (Del. 2016) (“Our law requires that all the pled facts regarding
    a director’s relationship to the interested party be considered in full context in making the,
    admittedly imprecise, pleading stage determination of independence.”).
    58
    interested party, and decide whether the relationship is of a bias-producing
    nature.” 222
    As to May, McHale and Nelson, the Complaint’s allegations regarding their
    respective personal relationships with Ms. Redstone (or NAI) are “thin.”223
    Plaintiffs make much of the fact that May and Ms. Redstone have been neighbors,
    living “a mere five-minute walk away” from each other, for the last 26 years.224
    May, Ms. Redstone and Sumner Redstone also spent time on not-for-profit boards
    together. 225 McHale served as general counsel for MTV Networks in the mid-1980s,
    leaving the network two years prior to its acquisition by Viacom in 1987.226 Nelson
    served as the Executive Vice President, CFO and director of Paramount
    222
    McElrath v. Kalanick, 
    224 A.3d 982
    , 995 (Del. 2020) (alteration in original) (internal
    quotations omitted).
    223
    It seems in Delaware’s corporate law jurisprudence that certain words and phrases catch
    on as descriptive of particular points. In the director independence realm, our courts have
    taken to describing the “thickness” (or not) of the relationship between the target director
    and the interested director. See Sanchez, 
    124 A.3d at
    1023–24 (discussing the “thickness
    of the relationship” between the clearly interested controller and members of the board of
    directors); Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo!, 
    132 A.3d 752
    , at 784–85 (Del. Ch. 2016) (same);
    In re PLX Tech., Inc. S’holders Litig., 
    2018 WL 5018535
    , at *43 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018)
    (same); Lavin v. West Corp., 
    2017 WL 6728702
    , at *13 n.99 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2017)
    (same).
    224
    Compl. ¶¶ 26, 54–55.
    225
    Compl. ¶ 26.
    226
    Compl. ¶¶ 27, 54.
    59
    Communications, which Viacom acquired in 1994.227 Nelson then served as the co-
    COO of DreamWorks SKG from 1994 to 2003, during which DreamWorks SKG
    and Paramount Pictures co-produced films. 228 When NAI cleaned house at Viacom
    following Sumner Redstone’s departure, each of May, McHale and Nelson (and
    Seligman, as discussed below) were hand selected by Ms. Redstone to join the
    Viacom Board.
    Standing alone, I agree with the Viacom Committee Defendants that none of
    these allegations reveal the kind of “thick” personal or professional relationship that
    would overcome the presumption that these fiduciaries have acted independently of
    the NAI Parties.229 Thus, more is required and, as to May, McHale and Nelson, the
    analysis must continue.
    As for Seligman’s lack of independence based on her personal relationship
    with Ms. Redstone, Plaintiffs’ allegations have more substance. Seligman was
    President of Sony Entertainment, Inc. and Sony Corporation of America—both long-
    227
    Compl. ¶¶ 28, 54.
    228
    
    Id.
    229
    Defs. May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman’s Opening Br. at 18–28 (“SCDOB”)
    (D.I. 80); Defs. May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman’s Reply Br. (D.I. 103) at 5–15;
    see Beam v. Stewart, 
    845 A.2d 1040
    , 1050 (Del. 2004) (“Allegations of mere personal
    friendship or a mere outside business relationship, standing alone, are insufficient to raise
    a reasonable doubt about a director’s independence.”).
    60
    time customers of NAI. 230 Seligman and Ms. Redstone shared time on a not-for-
    profit board together and have been known to accompany one another to annual trade
    and professional events. 231 A Wall Street Journal reporter, Joe Flint, described
    Seligman and Ms. Redstone as “BFFs,” and a New York Post reporter, Alexandra
    Steigrad, chronicled how Seligman had come to be considered Ms. Redstone’s
    “closest advisor.” 232 Evidencing their friendship, Ms. Redstone emailed Seligman
    to express her frustration with the CBS Board’s resistance to NAI: “I need another
    you [for the CBS Board], but obviously it can’t be you. . . . Miss you tons. . . . we
    can grab coffee next Friday . . . .” 233 As one would expect of close friends,
    Ms. Redstone was comfortable having Seligman spearhead the negotiations leading
    to the Merger, and Seligman personally provided Ms. Redstone with frequent
    updates throughout. 234 These allegations regarding the “thickness” of the personal
    relationship between Seligman and Ms. Redstone, standing alone, present a
    230
    Compl. ¶ 29.
    231
    Compl. ¶¶ 29, 55.
    232
    Compl. ¶ 55 (citing, respectively, @JBFlint, Twitter (July 10, 2019),
    https://twitter.com/JBFlint/status/1148982061857824768, and Alexandra Steigrad,
    The CBS-Viacom Merger Could Be a Few Months Away: Insiders, N.Y. Post (Nov. 18,
    2018),      https://nypost.com/2018/11/18/the-cbs-viacom-merger-could-bea-few-months-
    away-insiders/).
    233
    Compl. ¶ 55 (alteration in original).
    234
    Compl. ¶¶ 29, 55, 74.
    61
    reasonably conceivable case that Ms. Seligman was not independent of the
    NAI Parties with respect to the Merger.
    As noted, Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the Viacom Committee
    Defendants’ personal relationships with Ms. Redstone are just one element of the
    “totality” of facts pled to support the reasonable inference that these directors lacked
    independence from the NAI Parties.235 As discussed below, there is more.
    2. Ms. Redstone and NAI’s Demonstrated History of Ouster
    Plaintiffs proffer a detailed account of NAI’s three attempts to execute a
    Viacom/CBS combination in support of their claim that the Viacom Committee
    Defendants acted disloyally when negotiating and ultimately approving the Merger.
    As noted, Plaintiffs begin their account in 2016 by emphasizing that Ms. Redstone
    hand-picked May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman to serve on the Viacom Board
    following the contested ouster of Viacom Board members by NAI after the Viacom
    Board warned NAI not to attempt to undermine their independence.236 In apparent
    recognition that May, McHale, Nelson and Seligman might face liability arising
    from the circumstances surrounding their appointment to the Viacom Board, NAI
    took the unusual step of agreeing to indemnify these directors for any such
    235
    Sanchez, 
    124 A.3d at 1019
    .
    236
    Compl. ¶¶ 52–54. Plaintiffs allege it is no coincidence that each of these directors would
    comprise the Viacom special committee each time NAI pushed for a Viacom/CBS merger.
    Compl. ¶¶ 61, 71.
    62
    liability. 237 According to Plaintiffs, this unusual gesture set the stage for further
    dominance.238
    The Complaint alleges that NAI’s retributive conduct was not reserved for the
    Viacom Board; NAI came after the CBS Board as well when that board attempted
    to prevent the 2018 merger attempt. 239 According to Plaintiffs, NAI’s tendency and
    history of ouster “conceivably was not lost on members of the [Viacom Committee]
    when they considered” NAI’s third proposal for a Viacom/CBS merger. 240
    237
    Compl. ¶¶ 56–58.
    238
    The Viacom Committee Defendants contend the mere fact a director was appointed to
    the board by an interested stockholder does not alone compromise that director’s
    independence. SCDOB at 15. I agree. See McElrath, 224 A.3d at 995 (“Importantly,
    being nominated or elected by a director who controls the outcome is insufficient by itself
    to reasonably doubt a director’s independence because ‘[t]hat is the usual way a person
    becomes a corporate director.’” (quoting Aronson v. Lewis, 
    473 A.2d 805
    , 816
    (Del. 1984))); Calesa Assocs., L.P. v. Am. Capital, Ltd., 
    2016 WL 770251
    , at *11 (Del. Ch.
    Feb. 29, 2016) (“The Defendants correctly argue that ‘[t]he fact that an allegedly
    controlling stockholder appointed its associates to the board of directors . . . without more,
    does not establish actual domination.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Primedia, 
    67 A.3d at 258
    )). But, to reiterate, there is more.
    239
    Compl. ¶¶ 49–58, 99–106; see also Compl. ¶¶ 63–64 (alleging Ms. Redstone “reacted
    strongly to this rejection advising the CBS independent directors that ‘the failure to get the
    deal done had caused Viacom to suffer’ and made clear that her battle to merge CBS and
    Viacom was not over, stating ‘the merger would get done ‘even if [she had] to use a
    different process’” (alteration in original)).
    240
    Tesla I, 
    2018 WL 1560293
    , at *15; see also EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *41 (Del. Ch.
    Jan. 25, 2016) (“[W]hen controllers actually make retributive threats, that fact has legal
    significance.”); Tornetta, 
    2019 WL 4566943
    , at *1 (“[I]n a transaction such as the one
    considered . . . the controlling shareholder will continue to dominate the company
    regardless of the outcome of the transaction. The risk is thus created that those who pass
    63
    In arguing that these allegations do not plead a reasonably conceivable basis
    to question their independence, the Viacom Committee Defendants maintain that
    Plaintiffs must couple their allegations relating to fear of removal with allegations
    that the Viacom directorships were “material” to each of these defendants.241 That
    might be true if that is all Plaintiffs alleged. But threats of removal, even in
    circumstances where the directorship is not demonstrably material, cannot be
    ignored in the independence analysis. Indeed, “giving pleading-stage effect to a
    controller’s actual threats and retributive behavior has important integrity-
    preserving consequences.”242 Thus, at the pleading stage, this Court can reasonably
    infer that “[a controlling stockholder’s] willingness to take retributive action
    upon the propriety of the transaction might perceive that disapproval may result in
    retaliation by the controlling shareholder.” (quoting Tremont II, 
    694 A.2d at 428
    )).
    241
    Beam, 833 A.2d at 978 (“What is required in addition are allegations demonstrating that
    remaining on [the] board is material to the outside directors such that they would be
    incapable of considering demand without this extraneous consideration having an
    inappropriate effect on their decisionmaking process.”). But cf. Frederick Hsu Living Tr.
    v. ODN Hldg. Corp., 
    2017 WL 1437308
    , at *32 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2017) (“Although in
    theory a special committee of independent directors ‘is best positioned to extract a price at
    the highest possible level because it does not suffer from the collective action problem of
    disaggregated stockholders,’ the men and women who populate the committees are rarely
    individuals ‘whose own financial futures depend importantly on getting the best price and,
    history shows, [they] are sometimes timid, inept, or . . . , well, let’s just say worse.’”
    (alteration in original) (quoting In re Cox Commc’ns, Inc. S’holders Litig., 
    879 A.2d 604
    ,
    619 (Del. Ch. 2005) (Strine, V.C.))).
    242
    EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *42.
    64
    affect[s] all of the directors.”243 Plaintiffs have clearly alleged that NAI has a
    willingness to take such action, and this willingness, coupled with other facts, can
    reasonably be inferred to have affected the Viacom Committee Defendants’
    independence at the pleading stage.
    3. The “Controlled Mindset”
    As the final element of their pleading-stage lack of independence showing,
    Plaintiffs invoke the so-called “controlled mindset” reasoning first applied as such
    by this court in In re Southern Peru Copper Stockholder Derivative Litigation.244
    The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ argument is that NAI dominated the Viacom Committee
    and its process, as evidenced by:
    • The composition of the Viacom Committee, all of whom were
    NAI’s hand-picked directors selected after disloyal board members
    were removed; 245
    • The Viacom Committee’s obedient acceptance of NAI’s direction
    that it would not consider a transaction other than a merger with
    CBS, and its reflexive rebuff of third-party interest in Viacom; 246
    • The Viacom Committee’s submissive assumption that NAI’s past
    resistance to conditioning the merger with CBS on the approval of a
    243
    
    Id.
    244
    Southern Peru, 
    52 A.3d at 798
     (“From inception, the Special Committee fell victim to
    a controlled mindset and allowed [the controlling stockholder] to dictate the terms and
    structure of the Merger.”).
    245
    Compl. ¶¶ 52–54.
    246
    Compl. ¶¶ 73, 77, 116–17, 123–24.
    65
    majority of Viacom’s minority stockholders would remain NAI’s
    position with respect to the Merger, thereby explaining its decision
    not to ask NAI to agree to this protection for minority
    stockholders; 247
    • The Viacom Committee’s decision not to seek a collar on the deal
    price or other minority protections (such as the ability to effect a
    change in recommendation tied to a stock price drop), even though
    NAI insisted that the Merger be structured as stock-for-stock and
    even though due diligence revealed that Viacom was significantly
    outperforming CBS;248
    • NAI’s dominance of the Viacom Committee’s negotiation strategy,
    including that the Viacom Committee allowed NAI to insist on
    nailing down NAI’s governance demands, principally Bakish’s
    placement as CEO, before the Viacom Committee could negotiate
    the economics of the deal in earnest;249
    • The Viacom Committee’s refusal to pivot and focus on economics
    when the CBS special committee made clear that it would deem its
    agreement to NAI’s governance demands as a valuable and
    “significant concession,” meaning Viacom would have to pay for
    NAI to achieve its governance goals; 250 and
    • The Viacom Committee’s refusal to exploit the negotiating leverage
    Viacom’s management had given it by electing to ignore the
    favorable, reliably prepared Viacom management projections and,
    instead, rely only upon consensus analyst estimates when
    negotiating with the CBS special committee and when valuing the
    transaction (even after the Viacom Committee’s financial advisors
    demonstrated that using consensus estimates for both companies
    247
    Compl. ¶¶ 123, 182, 202–04.
    248
    Compl. ¶¶ 209, 211.
    249
    Compl. ¶¶ 119–21, 167, 181–85.
    250
    Compl. ¶ 183.
    66
    would artificially overstate CBS’s value to the detriment of
    Viacom). 251
    When analyzing director independence in the presence of a controlling
    stockholder, “the focus . . . is on domination of the board with regard to the
    transaction at issue.” 252 This inquiry is not one size fits all; rather, “it is a highly fact
    specific inquiry” with “no magic formula to find control.”253 When engaging in this
    inquiry at the pleading stage, the court “does not take an unduly restrictive view of
    the avenues through which a controller obtains corporate influence.”254
    “[W]hether [the Viacom Committee Defendants] were controlled is an issue
    of fact which must, at this stage, be determined from an examination of the well-
    pled facts in the Complaint.”255          As the Court considers the totality of this
    251
    Compl. ¶¶ 166, 168–78.
    252
    Crimson, 
    2014 WL 5449419
    , at *16.
    253
    Calesa, 
    2016 WL 770251
    , at *11; see also Usha Rodrigues, The Fetishization of
    Independence, 
    33 J. Corp. L. 447
    , 465 (2008) (“The Fetishization of Independence”)
    (“Delaware courts examine a director’s behavior as an indicator of independence, creating
    a contextual approach--rather than looking only to rigid proxies like the lack of a familial
    or financial relationship--in gauging the lack of improper influence or conflicts of
    interest.”).
    254
    In re Zhongpin Inc. S’holders Litig., 
    2014 WL 6735457
    , at *8 (Del. Ch. Nov. 26,
    2014), rev’d sub nom. on other grounds, Cornerstone, 
    115 A.3d 1173
    .
    255
    Calesa, 
    2016 WL 770251
    , at *11; see also The Fetishization of Independence, at 478
    (“[T]he independence of directors is evaluated not just in terms of their lack of ties with
    the acquirer, but also in terms of their behavior. Delaware courts conduct a fact-intensive
    ex post inquiry into the special committee's actions.”).
    67
    Complaint’s allegations of domination and control, it must remain mindful that
    “[a] controlling stockholder occupies a uniquely advantageous position for
    extracting differential benefits from the corporation at the expense of minority
    stockholders,”256 creating a risk “that those [directors] who pass upon the propriety
    of the transaction might perceive that disapproval may result in retaliation by the
    controlling shareholder.” 257 In this regard, “[e]ven an independent, disinterested
    director can be dominated in his decision-making by a controlling stockholder,”258
    resulting in directors who are “more independent in appearance than in
    substance.”259 When the court determines that the pled facts allow a reasonable
    inference that a board’s (or special committee’s) independence has been “sterilized”
    by the domination of a controller, “[t]his determination, in turn, is sufficient to rebut
    the business judgment rule with respect to actions of the Board.’” 260
    256
    EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *11.
    257
    
    Id.
     at *11–12 (citing Tremont II, 
    694 A.2d at 428
    ); id. at *20 (noting when a controller
    is interested in consummating a transaction “there is a risk of coercion” (citing, in turn,
    Citron, 
    584 A.2d at 502
    )). Cf. Tesla I, 
    2018 WL 1560293
    , at *16 (discussing how the
    controller brought the transaction proposal “to the Board not once, not twice, but three
    times” and led the Board’s discussions regarding the transaction, making it appropriate to
    consider “whether [the controller] brought with him into the boardroom the kind of
    influence that would support a reasonable inference that he dominated the Board’s
    decision-making with regard to the Acquisition”).
    258
    Tesla I, 
    2018 WL 1560293
    , at *17.
    259
    EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *21 (quoting Cox, 879A.2d at 619).
    260
    Calesa, 
    2016 WL 770251
    , at *11.
    68
    After carefully reviewing the Complaint, I am satisfied Plaintiffs have pled
    sufficient facts to meet the “low ‘reasonable conceivability’ standard of
    Rule 12(b)(6)” with respect to the controlled mindset of the Viacom Committee.261
    Specifically, it is reasonably conceivable that the Viacom Committee Defendants
    allowed NAI’s influence over them to impede their role in disabling NAI’s self-
    interest and ensuring that the best interests of all Viacom stockholders were loyally
    represented in the negotiation and consummation of the Merger. 262 In reaching this
    conclusion, I have “focus[ed] on how the [Viacom Committee] actually negotiated
    the deal . . . rather than just how the committee was set up.”263 As pled, the Viacom
    Committee’s negotiations reflect a desire to placate the controller, not to land the
    261
    
    Id.
    262
    See EZcorp, 
    2016 WL 301245
    , at *21 (emphasizing the crucial role of an effective
    special committee in disabling the controller’s influence); Tornetta, 
    2019 WL 4566943
    ,
    at *12 (“MFW provides a roadmap that allows fiduciaries to engage in conflicted controller
    transactions worthy of pleadings stage business judgment deference. In the conflicted
    controller context, in particular, MFW’s ‘dual protections’ are meant to ‘neutralize’ the
    conflicted controller’s ‘presumptively coercive influence’ so that judicial second-guessing
    is no longer required.” (quoting Rouse, 
    2018 WL 1226015
    , at *1))).
    263
    Southern Peru, 
    52 A.3d at 789
    ; see also Tremont II, 
    694 A.2d at 429
     (stating a special
    committee must “function in a manner which indicates that the controlling shareholder did
    not dictate the terms of the transaction and that the committee exercised real bargaining
    power at ‘an arms-length’”).
    69
    best transaction possible for all Viacom stockholders.264 Thus, Plaintiffs have well
    pled that the Viacom Committee operated under a controlled mindset. 265
    * * * * *
    264
    In other words, the Viacom Committee Defendants “allowed themselves to be hemmed
    in by the controlling stockholder’s demands,” placing them “in a world where there was
    only one strategic option to consider, the one proposed by the controller, . . . [thus creating]
    a dynamic where at best [the committee] had two options, either figure out a way to do the
    deal the controller wanted or say no.” Southern Peru, 
    52 A.3d at 763, 801
    ; see also
    Frederick Hsu Living Tr., 
    2020 WL 2111476
    , at *35 (noting that a special committee that
    was dominated by a controlling stockholder “seemed less intent on negotiating with [the
    controller] and more interested in achieving the result that [the controller] wanted”).
    Importantly, in the context of the controlled mindset analysis, the question of why the
    Viacom Committee Defendants were not independent or acted disloyally ultimately is of
    no consequence; it is enough that the facts as pled support a reasonable inference that each
    member was unable or unwilling to resist NAI’s influence. In re Oracle Corp. Deriv.
    Litig., 
    2018 WL 1381331
    , at *11 (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2018) (“‘[t]he reason for the disloyalty
    (the faithlessness) is irrelevant[;] the underlying motive (be it venal, familial, collegial, or
    nihilistic) for conscious action not in the corporation's best interest does not make it
    faithful, as opposed to faithless.’” (alterations in original) (quoting Guttman v. Huang, 
    823 A.2d 492
    , 506 n.34 (Del. Ch. 2003))).
    265
    The Viacom Committee Defendants counter that Southern Peru offers no authority for
    denying their motion to dismiss since the members of the special committee in that case
    were dismissed at the summary judgment stage for lack of evidence supporting a non-
    exculpated claim. Arg. and Ruling on Cross-Mots. for Summ. J., C.A. No. 961–VCS,
    at 123–29 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2010) (TRANSCRIPT). At first glance, the Viacom
    Committee Defendants appear to make a valid point. On closer inspection of the briefs
    and oral argument, however, it is clear that the plaintiffs in Southern Peru simply did not
    raise the controlled mindset argument at the summary judgment stage, nor did they even
    challenge the special committee directors’ independence. It is, therefore, impossible to
    predict how the court might have ruled on the special committee’s motion for summary
    judgment had the controlled mindset argument been on the table. The court’s comments
    about the special committee’s conduct post-trial suggest the controlled mindset argument
    may have had traction at summary judgment had it been made.
    70
    The Complaint well-pleads that each member of the Viacom Committee knew
    Ms. Redstone personally outside of Viacom. The fact that Ms. Redstone chose to
    appoint the members of the Viacom Committee to the Viacom Board following the
    contentious removal of directors she viewed as disloyal suggests her personal
    relationship with these hand-picked directors was “thicker” than may first appear.
    As for Seligman, there is no need to suggest; the pled facts reveal a close personal
    relationship of a nature that allows an inference that Seligman’s loyalties would run
    to Ms. Redstone over Viacom. The Complaint’s allegations regarding the Viacom
    Committee      Defendants’    personal    relationships   with    Ms.    Redstone,    the
    circumstances of their appointments to the Viacom Board and the Viacom
    Committee, their knowledge of NAI’s past retributive behavior, and their actions as
    special committee members that reasonably infer a controlled mindset, taken
    together, sufficiently plead reasonably conceivable breaches of the duty of loyalty
    on the part of each Viacom Committee Defendant.266
    C. The Complaint Fails to State a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against
    Bakish (Count III)
    266
    Cornerstone, 
    115 A.3d at
    1186–87 (noting that “when a complaint pleads facts creating
    an inference that seemingly independent directors approved a conflicted transaction for
    improper reasons, and thus, those directors may have breached their duty of loyalty, the
    pro-plaintiff inferences that must be drawn on a motion to dismiss counsels for resolution
    of that question of fact only after discovery”).
    71
    Regardless of the standard of review, to plead a viable claim of breach of
    fiduciary duty, Plaintiffs must allege “sufficiently detailed acts of wrongdoing” to
    place the defendant on notice of what he purportedly did wrong. 267 Plaintiffs appear
    to offer only three criticisms of Bakish, each of which falls far short of pleading
    actionable wrongdoing.
    First, Plaintiffs allege that Bakish kept Ms. Redstone informed of all major
    Viacom decisions.268 Importantly, Plaintiffs do not allege that Bakish was involved
    in substantive negotiations or otherwise was a part of the Viacom Committee’s
    process leading to the Merger. While Ms. Redstone’s effort to curry favor with
    Bakish in order to enlist his assistance in connection with a merger she was
    contractually barred from pursuing is troubling, the Complaint does not allege that
    Bakish was bound by the 2018 settlement agreement or that he had any basis under
    the circumstances to resist Ms. Redstone’s requests for information.
    Second, it is alleged that Ianniello contacted Bakish with regard to restarting
    the negotiation process leading to the Merger, and that Bakish responded to Ianniello
    267
    Gantler v. Stephens, 
    965 A.2d 695
    , 709 (Del. 2009); see also VLIW Tech., LLC v.
    Hewlett-Packard Co., 
    840 A.2d 606
    , 611 (Del. 2003) (noting that, under Chancery
    Rule 8(a), a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of a claim”); In re Coca-Cola
    Enters., Inc., 
    2007 WL 3122370
    , at *4 n.28 (Del. Ch. Oct. 17, 2007) (“Plaintiffs need not
    offer prolix tales of abuse belabored by needless details, but plaintiffs must
    allege facts sufficient to show that the legal elements of a claim have been satisfied.”).
    268
    Compl. ¶ 67.
    72
    by suggesting that the financial and legal advisors to each special committee should
    engage regarding potential terms of a transaction.269 In this regard, Bakish did
    exactly what he was supposed to do: when approached by CBS’s CEO, Bakish
    informed him that the respective special committees and their advisors should
    engage. There is no actionable wrongdoing there.
    Finally, Plaintiffs allege Bakish met with four members of the CBS special
    committee after NAI and Viacom insisted that Bakish lead the combined company
    as CEO. 270 As alleged, during this meeting, the CBS special committee advised
    Bakish that the two special committees would have to agree on governance before
    CBS would be willing to discuss the exchange ratio.271 There is no allegation that,
    from here, Bakish attempted to influence the Viacom Committee’s negotiation
    strategy or otherwise attempted to steer Viacom into pushing for his role as CEO of
    the combined company at the expense of economic consideration for Viacom’s
    stockholders. All that is alleged is that Bakish was asked to meet with the CBS
    special committee and agreed to take that meeting. He then relayed the substance of
    the meeting to the Viacom Committee and that committee took it from there.
    269
    Compl. ¶ 119.
    270
    Compl. ¶ 184.
    271
    
    Id.
    73
    None of these allegations implicate any fiduciary breaches or other actionable
    wrongdoing by Bakish. Indeed, from the Complaint’s narrative, it would appear that
    Bakish refrained from inserting himself into the process and deliberately chose not
    to flaunt his power as chief executive. Again, there is no claim of actionable
    wrongdoing pled here.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Counts I
    and II of the Complaint, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
    NAI Parties and the Viacom Committee Defendants, respectively. The Motion is
    GRANTED as to Count III, which purports to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary
    duty against Bakish.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    74