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
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
A CORPORATION (HERE A COOPERATIVE) DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS; THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BUT NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY BOARD MEMBERS WERE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection
Statutory Privilege Afforded Emergency Vehicles (Imposing a “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Accident-LiabilIty) Is Not Dependent Upon Whether the Emergency Lights and Siren Were Activated
DESPITE THE HUSBAND’S EXTRAORDINARY WEALTH, THE WIFE’S OVERREACHING CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
ACTION TO RESCIND A PURCHASE CONTRACT CONSTITUTED AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT WHICH RELIEVED SELLERS OF ANY FURTHER OBLIGATIONS AND ENTITLED SELLERS TO RETAIN THE DEPOSIT.
THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO PRIOR INCIDENTS—(1) A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING AND (2) NEARLY RUNNING OVER A TRAFFIC AGENT ABOUT TO ISSUE A PARKING TICKET—PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION SUPPORTING THE LEVEL THREE TRAFFIC STOP, DESPITE THE FACT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS DRIVING THE VAN DURING THE PRIOR INCIDENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCAFFOLD TILTED OR COLLAPSED CAUSING EVERYTHING IN IT TO CRASH ONTO HIM (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