You are here: / / Delaware Pleading Requirements Not Met in Shareholders’ Derivative...
,

Delaware Pleading Requirements Not Met in Shareholders’ Derivative Action

The Second Department determined the shareholders’ derivative action alleging breach of a fiduciary duty was properly dismissed for failure to meet the pleading requirements of the controlling Delaware law:

As the parties agree, the laws of Delaware, the State of incorporation, govern the issues raised on this appeal … . Delaware Chancery Court Rule 23.1(a) provides that every shareholders’ derivative complaint shall “allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and the reasons for the plaintiff’s failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” A plaintiff’s demand on the directors pursuant to Rule 23.1(a) will be excused “if the derivative complaint pleads particularized facts creating a reasonable doubt that (1) the directors are disinterested and independent or (2) the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment” … . Demand may also be excused in certain circumstances “where particularized factual allegations create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint was filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand” … . Here, the allegations of the amended complaint were insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 23.1(a). Walter v FalconStor Software, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02112, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

You might also like
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Action Against Governmental Entity Barred by Public Policy
NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD “THUMP” AND FINDING THE CHILD LYING BEHIND DEFENDANT’S CAR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT DEPENDED UPON INFORMATION FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, A DARDEN HEARING WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY, MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE NOTE ITSELF WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED WEAPONS FOUND IN A LOCKED ROOM BELONGING TO DEFENDANT’S DECEASED BROTHER; WEAPONS POSSESSION CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY SECOND IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY (SECOND DEPT).
Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not Justify Excluding Vehicle from Coverage Under the “For Hire” Exclusion

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

Invoices Together with Purchase Orders Created an Agreement to a Reduced Sales-Contract... Defendant Did Not Have the Right to Be Present During Discussion of Exclusion...