In Canadian Commercial Workers Industrial Pension Plan v. Alden, download file , the Chancery Court dismissed the claim for breach of the duty of oversight under Caremark (In Re: Caremark Int’l Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)) but refused to dismiss the claim for breach of the duty of loyalty and corporate waste in connection with allegations that Alden used corporate property and employees to operate his tax preparation business without reimbursing the company and that other directors improperly transferred accounts receivable to an entity in which he had a significant interest, as well as usurping corporate opportunities by funding litigation for a company that a director operated out of his corporate office. The court also rejected a Motion to Dismiss based on personal jurisdiction and refused to grant a motion based on a claim that there was an inadequate derivative plaintiff. Under Rule 15(aaa) the court determined that the dismissal was with prejudice. Rule 15(aaa) requires a plaintiff confronting a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss to either stand on the allegations of their complaint or amend their complaint, however, it does not require a plaintiff to make all of its arguments in its complaint. The court also discussed extensively the basis for a Caremark claim, which is not an easy claim to prevail on, as well as personal jurisdiction over a director for claims that are merely related to his status as a director when other claims made against him in his capacity as a director are also in the complaint. The court noted that the same analysis applies to the consent statute relating to managers of limited liability companies.