You are here: / / In this Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Causes of Action Not Subject to...
, ,

In this Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Causes of Action Not Subject to the “Internal Affairs” Doctrine Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department determined many of the causes of action in this shareholder derivative suit were not governed by Bermuda law under the “internal affairs” doctrine and, therefore, should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiffs — minority shareholders of Culligan Ltd. — bring this derivative action on behalf of that entity, a Bermuda company that does business in New York. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss upon finding that Bermuda law applied to the case pursuant to the “internal affairs” doctrine. That doctrine “recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders”  Since the internal affairs doctrine does not apply to those defendants who are not current officers, directors, and shareholders of Culligan Ltd. … Bermuda law does not apply to claims asserted against them.

Nor does the internal affairs doctrine apply to claims based on sections of the Business Corporation Law (BCL) enumerated in BCL §§ 1317 and 1319. BCL § 1319(a)(1) expressly provides that BCL § 626 (shareholders’ derivative action) shall apply to a foreign corporation doing business in New York. Thus, the issue of plaintiffs’ standing to bring a shareholder derivative action is governed by New York law, not Bermuda law … . …

Pursuant to German-American Coffee Co. v Diehl (216 NY 57, 62-64 [1915]) and BCL §§ 1319(a)(1), 719(a)(1), and 510, New York law applies to the second cause of action, which alleges that the directors of Culligan Ltd. declared illegal dividends.

To the extent plaintiffs allege violations of BCL § 720 (e.g. waste and unlawful conveyance), which is made applicable to foreign corporations doing business in New York by BCL § 1317(a)(2), those claims are also governed by New York law … . However, to the extent plaintiffs allege a violation of a section of the Business Corporation Law not enumerated in BCL § 1317 (e.g. § 717, which is part of plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim), New York law does not apply … . Those claims are governed by Bermuda law …, and were thus correctly dismissed. Culligan Soft Water Co v Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03955, 1st Dept 6-3-14

 

You might also like
Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)
FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward
CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).
CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A LYFT CAR WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED BY HIS FRIEND THROUGH THE FRIEND’S ACCOUNT; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD SCROLLED THROUGH AND AGREED TO LYFT’S TERMS OF SERVICE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

To Demonstrate “Defamation by Implication” Where the Factual Statements... Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained