Frank Reynolds of Thomson Reuters reports on the Delaware Supreme Court’s recent affirmance of a Chancery ruling which dismissed claims against GM directors. He reports that:
Dissident General Motors investors have failed to persuade the Delaware Supreme Court to give them another chance to prove the automakers’ directors negligently relied on a defect reporting system that failed to alert them to deadly ignition switch flaws for five years. In re Gen. Motors Co. Derivative Litig., (Del. Feb. 11, 2016)(Order).
After holding a special oral argument session at the Widener University Delaware Law School in Wilmington on Feb. 10, the justices [decided to] uphold a Chancery Court judge’s dismissal of charges that GM’s directors were asleep at the wheel and missed a fatal vehicle flaw. In re Gen. Motors Co. Derivative Litig., No. 9627, 2015 WL 3958724 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2015)
The rest of the article is available at this hyperlink. If Delaware’s high court had issued an extensive Opinion instead of a one-page Order, they would be hard pressed to provide a more scholarly legal analysis for their holding than provided by Professor Bainbridge, with his citations to prior cases and published commentary, explaining the doctrinal underpinnings for the decision to reject claims against the GM directors.