You are here: / / Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action...

Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action Because They Did Not Go to the Board Before Going to Court

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, the First Department determined the plaintiffs in a (putative) shareholder derivative action were not entitled to an award of legal fees pursuant to Business Corporation Law 626 because the plaintiffs went straight to court without first making a pre-suit demand upon the board for the desired action.  The plaintiffs sued the Goldman Sachs Group (GPS) to demand a reduction in employee compensation based on the prediction GPS would announce excessive employee compensation. When GPS announced a lower level of compensation, plaintiffs, claiming that the action had attained its objective, moved for a voluntary dismissal and for an award of legal fees.  In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of legal fees, the court wrote:

Plaintiffs argue that Business Corporation Law § 626(e) (quoted in pertinent part at footnote 5, supra) does not expressly require a showing that the demand requirement was complied with or excused as a prerequisite to an award of attorneys’ fees for bringing an action that brought a substantial benefit to the corporation (as plaintiffs claim—and defendants deny—that this action did). Plaintiffs further argue that there is no reason to construe the statute to imply such a requirement. We disagree. * * *

The demand requirement, far from being a meaningless formality, “rests on basic principles of corporate control–that the management of the corporation is entrusted to its board of directors, who have primary responsibility for acting in the name of the corporation and who are often in a position to correct alleged abuses without resort to the courts. The demand requirement thus relieves the courts of unduly intruding into matters of corporate governance by first allowing the directors themselves to address the alleged abuses. The requirement also provides boards with reasonable protection from harassment on matters clearly within their discretion, and it discourages strike suits commenced by shareholders for personal rather than corporate benefit” … . Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v Blankfein, 2013 NY Slip Op 05857, 1st Dept 9-17-13

 

 

You might also like
Severity of Injuries Compared With the Absence of a Damages Award for Past and Future Economic and Non-Economic Loss Indicates an “Impermissible Compromise Verdict” Was Reached—New Trial on Liability and Damages Properly Ordered
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA WITHDRAWN AND VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH.
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Disposition of Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding Reversed; Purpose Is Not to... Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Slip and Fall