Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

When Demanding Inspection, Don't Overlook The Demand

The wheels of justice turn slowly.  Two years ago, I wrote about Judge Robert C. Jones's ruling in Weinfeld v. Minor, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30117 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016).  In that ruling, Judge Jones tackled tackled the question "whether a judgment in an action by a corporation's stockholders suing derivatively on behalf of the corporation is binding under the rules of res judicata in a subsequent action by other stockholders suing derivatively on behalf of the corporation?" He concluded that under Nevada law, the prior lawsuit did not bar a subsequent derivative suit because the plaintiffs in the current suit were "neither parties nor privies to the previous action."

Now, two years hence, Judge Jones has issued a ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment.   Weinfeld v. Minor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51943.  Although his ruling addresses a number of different issues, I will for today focus only on his decision with respect to the plaintiffs' stockholder inspection claim:

Defendants cite six Plaintiff depositions for admissions as to a lack of any written demand. Plaintiffs produce no evidence to the contrary and do not claim the requirements of the statute were satisfied.  They simply argue that the statute should not apply. . . . There is nothing bizarre about 15%-ownership and written-demand requirements before a corporation must allow shareholders to go rummaging through file cabinets in corporate offices. Plaintiffs are free to try to convince the Nevada Legislature to change the requirements,  but the Court cannot rewrite the statute judicially. It clearly applies here, and Plaintiffs clearly have no evidence that they satisfied it. The Court is bound to grant summary judgment against this claim.
I think two conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing.  First, if a statute requires a written demand, it is generally a good idea to make a written demand and be able to evidence that demand.  Second, it is refreshing to see a judge not rewrite a statute, NRS 78.275(1), when it is plain on its face.
Share on:

nevada corporation

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

nominee-badge

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

RECOGNITION

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK