This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled Boeing Company directors must face shareholder charges that they breached their oversight duty by insulating themselves from safety problems with the new
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently decided AmerisourceBergen Corporation shareholders’ breach-of-duty suit was one of the few Caremark claims to pass Delaware’s pre-suit demand test because it may prove
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.
The business judgment rule cannot shield Clovis Oncology Inc.’s directors from shareholder charges that they breached their oversight duty by ignoring reports that their flagship cancer-fighting drug was
In re Puda Coal, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6476-CS (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2013)(Bench ruling). Thanks to Tariq Mundiya of Willkie Farr for forwarding the transcript.
This bench ruling, highlighted on The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog, for which I am a contributing author, addressed a claim for a breach of the
South v. Baker, C.A. No. 7294-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 25, 2012).
Issues Addressed
: This decision is a candidate for inclusion in the pantheon of iconic Delaware Court of Chancery opinions addressing the following issues: (1) When derivative plaintiffs and their counsel will be presumptively found to provide inadequate representation resulting in the complaint’s
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement Systems v. Pyott, C.A. 5795-VCL (Del. Ch. June 11, 2012).
Issues Addressed
Whether collateral estoppel, Rule 23.1 or Rule 12(b)(6) apply to require the dismissal of a Delaware derivative suit based on the dismissal in California of a related derivative suit in which a federal court granted a Rule 23.1
Amalgamated Bank v. NetApp, Inc., C.A. No. 6772-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2012).
Issue Addressed
Whether supplemental documents should be produced to comply with post-trial determination pursuant to DGCL Section 220 that books and records must be provided.
Background
In October 2010, the plaintiff in this case filed a stockholder derivative action in California based
Brenner v. Albrecht, C.A. No. 6514-VCP (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012), read opinion here.
Issue Addressed
The issue addressed in this case was whether a derivative action in Delaware should be stayed or allowed to proceed despite a related, pending federal securities class action.
Background
The plaintiff claimed in this derivative action that
In the case of In Re The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5215-VCG (Oct. 12, 2011), read opinion here, Vice Chancellor Glasscock, in his first major corporate law decision, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative action brought against Goldman’s current and former directors for failure to make a pre-suit
In Re The Dow Chemical Company Derivative Litigation, Cons. No. 4339, (Del. Ch., Jan. 11, 2010), read opinion here.
Kevin Brady and Ryan Newell of the Connolly Bove firm prepared this synopsis.
On January 11, 2010, a year after a major corporate battle between the Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and Rohm & Haas