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 ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MOVE TO DISQUALIFY LAW FIRMS WHICH NEVER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER AS HAVING BULLIED A FIFTH-GRADER PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE REPORTER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO RELY ON THE STUDENT’S MOTHER AND ANOTHER SOURCE BOTH OF WHOM PROVIDED THE WRONG NAME (FIRST DEPT).
THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT WHEN IT BECAME VACANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES; ALTHOUGH THE TENANT IN THE UNIT WAS NOT NAMED, REFERENCE TO THE TENANCY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPLY A “LIFE IN BEING” (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (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...