You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER ACTION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE...

PLAINTIFF IN THIS DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER ACTION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT A DEMAND FOR RELIEF ON THE BOARD COULD BE EXCUSED, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the complaint in this shareholder derivative action was properly dismissed for failure to first make a demand for relief on the board. The Rales criteria were not met:

Under Rales, “a court must determine whether . . . the particularized factual allegations of a derivative stockholder complaint create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint is filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand” … . The ” mere threat of personal liability . . . is insufficient to challenge either the independence or disinterestedness of directors'” … . However, “a substantial likelihood” of liability “disables [a director] from impartially considering a response to a demand by” a stockholder … .

“Where, as here, directors are exculpated from liability except for claims based on fraudulent, illegal or bad faith conduct, a plaintiff must . . . plead particularized facts that demonstrate that the directors acted with scienter, i.e., that they had actual or constructive knowledge that their conduct was legally improper” … .

Even though the complaint alleges that BMS’ audit committee and senior management knew about gaps in the company’s internal controls, it fails to establish bad faith or scienter … .

Plaintiff’s contention that defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability because they signed 10-K’s that contained false statements is also unavailing. It is true that “when directors communicate publicly . . . about corporate matters[,] the sine qua non of directors’ fiduciary duty to shareholders is honesty” … . However, “to establish liability for misstatements when the board is not seeking shareholder action, shareholder plaintiffs must show that the misstatement was made knowingly or in bad faith” … . Deckter v Andreotti, 2019 NY Slip Op 01717, First Dept 3-12-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACKWARD TO ALLOW OTHERS TO EXIT THE ELEVATOR; THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WAS SIX TO TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE BUILDING FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF SEVERELY INJURED HIS KNEE; THE SIX TO TWELVE INCH GAP WAS NOT THE TYPE OF “ELEVATION RISK” COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint
DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
THE BUILDING MANAGING AGENT, WHO HIRED PEREZ, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT, WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DETERMINE WHETHER PEREZ, A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD; THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGING AGENT, THEREFORE, WERE NOT LIABLE UNDER A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION THEORY OR A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY FOR PEREZ’S SEXUAL ASSAULT ON INFANT PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE.
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS EMANATING FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS.
PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER WAS INJURED WHEN HE BECAME DEHYDRATED DURING TRAINING; HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE THE INJURY DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF AN UNEXPECTED EVENT (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

THE ABSENCE OF A RETAINER AGREEMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S... NYC CHARTER DID NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE AUTHORITY FOR A SUMMARY INQUIRY...