City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Robert L. Reese, Police Retirement System of St. — Strine, J…

Summary

The dissent argues that the complaint adequately pleaded a rational inference that Duke Energy’s board knowingly supported a business strategy of violating environmental laws while using political influence and regulatory cooperation to reduce enforcement risks. It disagrees that plaintiffs had to plead or prove collusion between Duke and the state regulator at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The dissent would have permitted the fiduciary-duty claims to proceed, while the majority affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision.