Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Race to File Shareholder Derivative Suits in Delaware Slowed by Judicial Roadblock
In two recent opinions with wide-ranging practical implications for companies that are the target of shareholder derivative litigation, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court issued a well-developed, scathing critique of the plaintiffs bar's “first-to-file” mentality in derivative suits. See La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Pyott, C.A. No. 5795-VCL, 2012 WL 2087205, (hereinafter Allergan); South v. Baker, C.A. No. 7294-VCL, 2012 WL 4372538 at **14-15 (Del. Ch. Sept. 25, 2012) (hereinafter Hecla). In these opinions, Vice Chancellor Laster was particularly focused on the unseemly “race to the courthouse” by plaintiff lawyers seeking to act as fiduciaries for a company and its stockholders in the litigation. While these decisions are not likely to reduce the threat of shareholder derivative litigation against companies, they are likely to change how the cases are litigated, and provide companies with the ability to dispose of ill-conceived, plaintiff attorney-driven litigation at an early stage in the case.
Delaware courts have, for some time now, been insisting that plaintiffs seeking to file derivative litigation on behalf of a company against its own officers and directors first use 8 Del. C. ' 220 to request an opporunity to review relevant books and records of the corporation. These so-called “books-and-records” requests can provide a shareholder with the ability to conduct a limited pre-suit investigation in order to assess whether litigation is appropriate. See, e.g., Wood v. Baum, 953 A.2d 136, 144 (Del. 2008); Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040, 1056-57 (Del. 2004); White v. Panic, 783 A.2d 543, 556-57 (Del. 2001); Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244, 266-67 (Del. 2000); Grimes v. Donald, 623 A.2d 1207, 1216 (Del. 1996); In re Dow Chem. Co. Derivative Litig., No. 4349-CC, 2010 WL 66769 (Del. Ch. Jan. 11, 2010); Desimone v. Barrows, 924 A.2d 908, 951 (Del. Ch. 2007); Rattner v. Bidzos, No. Civ.A. 19700, 2003 WL 22284323, at *14 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2003); Guttman v. Huang, 823 A.2d 492, 493 (Del. Ch. 2003). But the plaintiffs bar has simply not heeded the direction of the Delaware courts.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.