In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., CA No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch. March 1, 2023) -
A plaintiff can plead an oversight claim against a board by alleging particularized facts to support an inference that...more
Harcum v. Lovoi, C.A. No. 2020-0398-PAF (Del. Ch. Jan. 3, 2022) -
In Harcum, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all claims brought in a stockholder suit alleging fiduciary breaches in connection with the $1 billion...more
In re Pattern Energy Grp. Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 2020-0357-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 6, 2021) -
This decision mostly denying a motion to dismiss examines several important issues in post-closing M&A fiduciary duty...more
Firefighters’ Pension System of The City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2021) Presidio illustrates potential pitfalls for parties in the M&A process, including...more
Southeastern Pa. Trans. Auth. v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0228-JRS (Oct. 29, 2019) -
Shareholders of a Delaware corporation have a qualified right to access corporate books and records for a “proper purpose.” ...more
Stein v. Blankfein, C.A. No. 2017-0354-SG (Del. Ch. May 31, 2019).
Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court held in In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 177 A.3d 1208 (Del. 2017) that stockholder approval of...more
Arch Insurance Co. v. Murdock, C.A. No. N16C-01-104 (EMD)(CCLD) (Del. Super. May 7, 2019).
After trial and an adverse judgment in the amount for $148 million for breach of the duty of loyalty in a going private merger In...more
Ellis v. Gonzalez, C.A. No. 2017-0342-SG (Del. Ch. July 10, 2018) -
The pre-suit demand on the board requirement for derivative litigation usually is not excused solely by a sufficiently pled disclosure violation....more
CertiSign Holding Inc. v. Kulikovsky / Kulikovsky v. CertiSign Holding Inc., C.A. No. 12055-VCS (Del. Ch. June 7, 2018) -
When a corporation accidentally issues defective stock or takes some other defective corporate act,...more
H&N Management Group Inc. v Couch, C.A. No. 12847-VCMR (Del. Ch. Aug. 1, 2017) -
This is a rare case involving apparent lack of care in approving a conflicted transaction and a failure to employ almost any safeguards to...more
A derivative plaintiff who fails to make a pre-suit demand on the board must show why demand is excused using particularized facts. Here, the plaintiff argued that demand was automatically excused by sufficiently pleading a...more
On November 30, 2016, a federal district court dismissed a shareholder derivative complaint against various current and former directors of Home Depot arising from the well-publicized data breach the company suffered between...more
Even after a board rejects a plaintiff-stockholder’s demand to bring a derivative litigation, the plaintiff may proceed to bring that derivative action if the plaintiff can show the demand was “wrongful.” Having conceded...more
Under the recent Corwin decision, a fully-informed vote by uncoerced and disinterested stockholders to approve a merger invokes the business judgment rule and effectively precludes almost any claim the merger was improper. ...more
Revenue projections are an inexact science, but they should have some basis in fact. Where they are alleged to be without a basis in reality, and indeed contrary to reality, a court may, as here, find that an officer’s...more
This decision explains when a Caremark claim exists based on illegal corporate conduct. The “substantial likelihood” of liability that justifies excusing a pre-suit demand on the board must involve a knowing violation of the...more
This is another in a series of decisions dealing with the allegation that a minority stockholder controlled a deal through its control of a majority of the board of directors....more
3/3/2016
/ Board of Directors ,
Breach of Duty ,
Consent ,
Controlling Stockholders ,
Delaware General Corporation Law ,
Derivative Suit ,
Dilution ,
Duty of Loyalty ,
Mergers ,
Minority Shareholders ,
Rescission ,
Shareholder Litigation
This is an interesting decision because it applies the demand rules in a derivative case to an odd situation — when some but not all of the board members have changed between when the challenged conduct occurred and when the...more