You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY...
,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although it did not sufficiently allege the breach of a fiduciary duty, the complaint by shareholders alleged the breach of the “sufficient information duty” owed to shareholders by the directors:

The complaint … fails to allege “a special factual relationship between the directors and the shareholders … bring[ing] the directors of the company into direct and close contact with the shareholders in a manner capable of generating fiduciary obligations” with regard to either the dividend policy that is the subject of the third cause of action or the merger transaction that is the subject of the fourth cause of action … .

However, to the extent the director defendants gave shareholders an information statement providing information and recommendations about the merger transaction, they owed the shareholders a “sufficient information duty” … . This is not a duty of loyalty, which would require the directors to subordinate their interests to the shareholders’ interests, but “if [the directors] are going to invite the shareholders to a meeting, common fairness requires that they explain what the purpose of the meeting is” in a “clear and comprehensible” manner … .

The complaint alleges that the information statement failed to disclose that two directors on the special committee negotiating merger terms had ties to the investor defendants, who proposed the merger, that it failed to disclose any details about the search for alternate proposals, which was illusory, that it failed to provide a meaningful valuation of ordinary shares using industry standards for the insurance business, and that it failed to disclose the impact on the stock value of a parallel bond transaction. Moreover, the complaint alleges that, while the information statement warned that the investor defendants could wipe out the ordinary shareholders by redeeming their convertible cumulative preferred participating shares, it misrepresented the likelihood of that occurrence. Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 01867, First Dept 3-20-18

CORPORATION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/SHAREHOLDERS (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/DIRECTORS (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED IT HAD RAINED FOR ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR; THEREFORE HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED UNIT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER; PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BEFORE BRINGING THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

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

NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD... UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, THE SHAREHOLDER’S DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION...