Delaware Supreme Court Overrules the Delaware Court of Chancery's Decision in Pyott v. La. Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System: Holds That California's Collateral Estoppel Laws Apply to Give Preclusive Effect to a Final California Judgment on the Merits

by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

On April 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware in Pyott v. La. Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System1 reversed the trial court's opinion and held that a final judgment in a California federal court required the dismissal of "essentially the same [derivative] complaint" in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case had drawn considerable controversy and substantial public attention because it raised further concerns about the risks of multi-forum litigation.


The case concerned Allergan, Inc., which creates and markets pharmaceutical products, including BOTOX. In September 2010, Allergan entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in which it pled guilty to the criminal misdemeanor of misbranding and paid $600 million in civil and criminal fines.

Multiple derivative suits were filed in the wake of the settlement with the DOJ in both the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "California action") and the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware action"). Separately, a stockholder sought to inspect certain books and records of Allergan, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 (the "Section 220 demand").

The defendants in the California and Delaware actions filed motions to dismiss the complaints in those actions in part for failure to make a demand or adequately allege demand futility. The California action proceeded through briefing, but the Delaware Court of Chancery postponed a hearing on the motion to dismiss in the Delaware action to allow the Section 220 demand to proceed first. Meanwhile, the California federal court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action, which now included the stockholders that originally sought documents under Section 220, filed a joint complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint, arguing in part that the California dismissal had preclusive effect and required the dismissal of the Delaware action.

The Delaware Court of Chancery's Decision

The Delaware Court of Chancery determined that the dismissal of the California action did not require the dismissal of the Delaware action.2 Specifically, the Court of Chancery held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies only if the parties are in privity. The Court held that the determination of whether a derivative plaintiff was in privity with the corporation or another purported derivative plaintiff is governed by the internal affairs doctrine and, since Allergan was a Delaware corporation, the issue was governed by Delaware law. Applying Delaware law, the Court of Chancery determined that the plaintiffs in the California and Delaware actions were not in privity with each other merely because they all filed derivative suits on behalf of a corporation: plaintiffs do not obtain standing to bring a suit until it is determined that the plaintiffs have made a demand that was wrongfully refused or establish that demand was futile.

As an alternative basis for refusing to give the California ruling preclusive effect, the Court of Chancery found that Allergan's interests were not adequately represented by the plaintiffs in California. In so holding, the Court of Chancery adopted a "fast filer presumption" under which the Delaware Court of Chancery has the discretion to determine that derivative plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the corporation because they have rushed to be the first to file their case.

The Delaware Supreme Court's Decision

California Law on Collateral Estoppel Required Dismissal of the Delaware Action

At the outset, the Delaware Supreme Court acknowledged that a state court must "give a federal judgment the same force and effect as it would be given under the preclusion rules of the state in which the federal court is sitting."3 Thus, "[o]nce a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final judgment . . ., a successive case is governed by the principles of collateral estoppel, under the full faith and credit doctrine, and not by demand futility law, under the internal affairs doctrine."4 This is because "the undisputed interests that Delaware has in governing the internal affairs of its corporations must yield to the stronger national interests that all state and federal courts have in respecting each other's judgments."5 Therefore, according to the Supreme Court of Delaware, the Delaware Court of Chancery should have applied the preclusion rules of California.

Applying California preclusion law required dismissal, according to the Delaware Supreme Court, because (1) the California action addressed the same question now pending before the Delaware court (i.e., whether Rule 23.1 required dismissal), and (2) the question was litigated to final judgment with prejudice on the merits in California. Further, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs in the California and Delaware actions were in privity to each other because under the California federal court's interpretation of Delaware corporate law, "the real plaintiff in the derivative suit is the corporation[.]"6

There Is No "Fast Filer" Presumption of Inadequacy

The Delaware Supreme Court also held that there is no "fast filer" presumption of inadequacy. The court rejected the notion that a court can find that a plaintiff is automatically inadequate because the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit without first filing a books and records demand under 8 Del. C. § 220.7 Absent that presumption, the court found no basis to hold that the California plaintiffs were "grossly deficient" given the substantial similarities between the California and Delaware complaints.


This case reinforces the recognition that when a court enters a final judgment with prejudice, Delaware courts will apply the preclusion laws of the state in which the court sits to determine whether preclusion requires dismissal. This ruling may calm the concerns of those facing multi-forum shareholder litigation that a resolution on the merits in one forum will be given preclusive effect in Delaware (and presumably other jurisdictions). The court's opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff that files a derivative complaint first is not presumptively inadequate merely because of the swift filing or the failure to obtain documents under 8 Del C. § 220, and that the court should continue to evaluate the adequacy of the plaintiff in representative litigation on a case-by-case basis.

For more information about the Delaware Supreme Court's decision or any related matter, please contact a member of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's securities litigation practice.

1 Pyott v. La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys., No. 380, 2012 (Del. April 4, 2013).

2 La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Pyott, 46 A.3d 313 (Del. Ch. 2012).

3 Pyott v. La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys., No. 380, 2012, at 6 (Del. April 4, 2013) (citing Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 607-08 (2001)).

4 Id. at 7.

5 Id.

6 Id. at 9.

7 Although the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the "fast filer" presumption, it acknowledged the legitimate concern about "fast filer[s]" and suggested that "remedies for the problems they create should be directed at the lawyers, not the stockholder plaintiffs or their complaints." Id. at 11-12.

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.

© Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.