You are here: / / THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE,” WHICH ADDRESSES RELATIONSHIPS...

THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE,” WHICH ADDRESSES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS, APPLIES TO THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS AT THE TIME OF THE CONDUCT ALLEGED IN THE LAWSUIT, NOT AT THE TIME THE LAWSUIT WAS BROUGHT; CONTRARY AUTHORITY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “internal affairs doctrine” required the application of the law of the jurisdiction of FanDuel, a Scottish company.  The “internal affairs doctrine” addresses the relationships between a company and its directors and shareholders. The doctrine applies to officers and directors at the time of the conduct alleged in the suit, not at the time of the lawsuit. Prior authority to the contrary should not be followed:

We reject plaintiff’s argument that the internal affairs doctrine applies only to officers and directors at the time of the lawsuit. Rather, the question is whether defendants were “current officers [or] directors” … at the time of the events giving rise to the lawsuit … . Application of the doctrine to former directors protects the parties’ justified expectations, promotes uniformity and predictability of outcome, and prevents different laws from applying to different directors who all engaged in the same challenged transaction simply because of the date on which plaintiff chose to sue … . To the extent our past decisions could be interpreted as suggesting otherwise we clarify that the internal affairs doctrine applies to an officer or director at the time of the conduct at issue … . Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05750, First Dept 10-13-22

Practice Point: In corporation law, the “internal affairs doctrine,” which addresses the relationships between a company and its officers and directors, applies to the officers and directors at the time of the conduct alleged in the lawsuit, not at the time the lawsuit was brought. Authority to the contrary should no longer be followed.

 

You might also like
ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE FOR BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE.
A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST 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).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWAY HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Checkpoint Vehicle Stop Illegal
Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction

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

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE HIS DIMINISHED RANGE OF MOTION... IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER...