In a ruling handed down this week, U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill addressed whether California law applied to derivative claims apparently brought on behalf of an Oregon entity. I found Judge O'Neill's ruling confusing at best. First, he...
Section 800(b)(1) of the California Corporations Code imposes the following standing requirement for derivative lawsuits:
A derivative claim is one brought by a shareholder on behalf of the corporation to recover for harm done to the corporation. Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720, 732 (Nev. 2003). However, when a derivative action is initiated, the...
Unlike the federal courts and Delaware's Court of Chancery, California has a statutory demand requirement. Section 800(b)(2) of the Corporations Code provides:
Shareholders are the persons who enjoy the most rights under the California General Corporation Law. A "shareholder" is not just anyone with rights in the shares, Corporations Code Section 185 defines a "shareholder" as "a holder of record of...
UCLA Law School Professor Stephen Bainbridge recently critiqued the Nevada Supreme Court's decision to follow Auerbach v. Bennett, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1979) rather than Delaware's Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1981). He concludes:
Yesterday's post limned the Nevada Supreme Court's adoption of New York's Auerbach standard of review for special litigation committee recommendations. In re Dish Network Derivative Litigation, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (2017). The Supreme Court...
I have long puzzled over the question of which is correct - "derivative suit" or "derivative action"? Historically, the term "suit" was used for proceedings in equity. California courts have generally regarded shareholder derivative claims as...