The U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware denied a Motion to Dismiss and allowed a derivative claim to proceed after deciding that the pre-suit demand requirements of Rule 23.1 were met and reasoning that claims of fiduciary duty breaches under Delaware law and misleading proxy solicitation under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 should not be dismissed. In the process, the court discussed the business judgment rule under Delaware law and held that the claims made raised questions about the good faith and honesty of the directors under Delaware law in connection with the proxy statements. The court also determined that the Section 14(a) claims should survive a Motion to Dismiss as they raised sufficient issues regarding the truthfulness of proxy statements related to the tax treatment of an executive compensation plan for Intel directors. Seinfeld v. Intel Corp., et al., download file. Even though I am local counsel for the prevailing plaintiff in the case, I still would have reported on this case. Here is an article that describes the case in more detail, download file.