You are here: / / SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY ARISING FROM...

SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST MORGAN STANLEY ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF $6.2 BILLION FROM HIGH RISK TRADING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PRE-SUIT DEMAND WOULD BE FUTILE.

The First Department, in this shareholders’ derivative action against Morgan Stanley, determined the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that a pre-suit demand upon the board of directors would have been futile.  Therefore, the action was properly dismissed (without prejudice). The lawsuit involved the so-called “London Whale” debacle where $6.2 billion was lost in high-risk trading despite public representations the group engaged in only low risk hedging. The court explained the relevant criteria for a futility demonstration:

 

Plaintiffs’ claim, based on the Board’s alleged failure to properly exercise its oversight duties, is premised on the theory of liability articulated in In re Caremark Intl. Inc. Derivative Litig. (698 A2d 959…). * * *

In Caremark cases, allegations of demand futility are analyzed under the principles set forth in Rales v Blasband (634 A2d 927, 933-934 [Del 1993]) …). Under Rales, the plaintiff must plead particularized facts raising “a reasonable doubt that, [at] 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” … . To rebut the presumption of disinterestedness, the plaintiff must plead particularized facts that, if proved, would establish that a majority of the directors face a “substantial likelihood” of personal liability for the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint … . A “mere threat” of liability is insufficient … .

Here, plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing that the board could not exercise independent business judgment because a majority of directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability for the challenged conduct. At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, the board consisted of 11 directors. At most, plaintiffs showed that four of them — inside director Dimon and the three members of the Risk Policy Committee — faced a substantial likelihood of liability … . “Because a majority of the directors are independent, demand is not excused”… . Wandel v Dimon, 2016 NY Slip Op 00252, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT [SARA] (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (FIRST DEPT).
AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WITH RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSPECT OR REPAIR DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO REPAIR THE DEFECT AT ISSUE, DEFECT WAS NOT STRUCTURAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE A STATUTORY SAFETY PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
A Party Alleging Fraudulent Inducement to Enter a Contract May Both Seek to Avoid Terms of the Contract (Here a Jury-Waiver Clause) and Rely on the Contract in Defense of Breach of Contract Allegations/Criteria for Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action Explained in Some Depth (Criteria Not Met Here)
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness to Demonstrate Motivation and Bias
PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest

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

RENTAL PERMIT REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE LEASE;... WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNTY COURT’S ERROR...