Grosset v. Wenaas is the name of a very recent California Supreme Court decision that followed Delaware law. Read the opinion here. This West Coast jurisprudence comes to us courtesy of Justin Myer Lichterman, a lawyer in the San Francisco office of the Orrick firm who was kind enough to forward the case to me with the following introductory summary:
Though the real issue in the case was whether CA requires continuous ownership, as well as contemporaneous, the Court brought CA into line with Delaware on the contemporaneous and continuous ownership requirements for standing in derivative actions. The Court punted on the potential 2115 and internal affairs issues that it could have addressed in deciding the case.
Money quote: "Not only does a requirement for continuous ownership further the statutory purpose to minimize abuse of the derivative suit, but the basic legal principles pertaining to corporations and shareholder litigation all but compel it." (pg. 16 )
UPDATE: Prof. Larry Ribstein comments here on the case. In addition to being the nation’s leading expert on LLCs and alternative entities, he has an extensive amount of scholarship on the issue of "choice of law" and the internal affairs doctrine such as was addressed (dodged?) in this case.