Court Of Chancery Explains When Prior Dismissal Does Not Preclude Another Derivative Case

Morris James LLP
Contact

In Re Duke Energy Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. 7705-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2016)

This is an important decision because it explains when a prior dismissal of a derivative complaint does not preclude a second complaint alleging a wrong close to that alleged in the dismissed case.

It distinguishes a series of prior Court of Chancery decisions that did dismiss the second suit on collateral estoppel grounds. The key for the second action to survive dismissal depends on the state law where the first action was dismissed, but generally speaking issues that were not already presented and decided will survive.  Where the issues are the same as those already decided, however, simply having a better pleading will not sustain the second case.  Here, because the Court did not find the issues to be identical, it allowed the second case to proceed.

The decision is also very good in harmonizing the often confused distinction between the Rales and Aronson standards for determining when demand on the board is excused.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Morris James LLP

Written by:

Morris James LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Morris James LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide