Featured Publications

Hospitality Industry: Mediation of Golf Industry Disputes Alert - January 31, 2012

Golf clubs and their developers, owners, builders, operators, managers and members are still taking their disputes to court to duke, or "club" it out. This trend continues even when there are readily available options to full-blown litigation, such as alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

More

Labor, Employment and Benefits: Alert - February 6, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied an employer’s request for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that tipped employees spending more than 20 percent of their time performing related but non-tipped duties must be paid the full minimum wage for that time, without the tip credit.

More

Search Our Library

Search

  • Print Article
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Print Newsletter / Alert
Securities & Financial News to Note
Bulletin - July 26, 2010
 
In this Issue...
“Filing Olympics” Discouraged in Delaware Derivative Litigation
 
July 26, 2010
 

In two recent significant decisions, the Delaware Chancery Court has sent a clear message to would-be plaintiffs racing to be the first to file a derivative class action to do their homework first. In both cases, the lead plaintiffs filed derivative actions and subsequently made Section 220 books-and-records demands under Delaware General Corporation Law to obtain information from the company to bolster their claims in the actions. While it is perfectly appropriate to make a Section 220 demand to gather the necessary facts to plead demand futility and other derivative claims, derivate plaintiffs must seek books-and-records and conduct an adequate investigation into demand futility prior to filing a derivative action. To do so after filing the complaint constitutes an improper purpose for making a Section 220 demand, and both courts viewed the demand as an attempt to circumvent Chancery Court’s Rule 23.1 heightened pleading standard. As one Court noted, Rule 23.1 exists to prevent a corporation from having “to expend money and resources in discovery and trial in the stockholder’s quixotic pursuit of a purported claim based solely on conclusions, opinions or speculations.” To allow shareholders to use Section 220 to bolster derivative complaints would only “[exacerbate] the perverse incentives motivating too many representative plaintiffs’ unseemingly and inefficient race to the courthouse.”

Unable to adequately plead demand futility without the information from their improper Section 220 books-and-records demands, both actions were dismissed with prejudice. As aptly summed up by the Court, “Section 220 should be used before filing a derivative complaint, not after … [the plaintiff] did not conduct a proper pre-filing investigation. He cannot attempt to remedy that failure through post-filing procedural contortions.”

http://www.delawarebusinesslitigation.com/uploads/file/King%20v%20VeriFone.pdf

http://www.delawarebusinesslitigation.com/uploads/file/Baca%20v%20Insight.pdf

Related Practices