In AIG v. Barbizet, et al., (Del Ch., July 11, 2006), read opinion here, the Delaware Chancery Court explains the requirements of pre-suit demand under Rule 23.1 as well as Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984) and its progeny, in light of DGCL Section 141(a). The court  found that demand was excused due to the lack of independence by a majority of the board. In particular, the director defendants lacked independence due to their close ties to Francois Pinault, also an interested party. The court examines the relevant facts, which are of necessity case-specific, to support its reasoning. However, the motion to dismiss was granted with respect to a wholly-owned subsidiary that played no role in the events that form the basis of the claims. [ Most readers will notice that I am current on my summaries of Chancery  Court opinions and the most recent opinions on the court’s website are more recent than this case. I am not sure why I did not include this case in prior summaries, but in any event here it is.]