We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-6 of 6

Delaware Supreme Court affirms preclusive effect of non-Delaware dismissals and rejects irrebuttable presumption that a derivative plaintiff who fails to conduct a Section 220 inspection is an inadequate representative

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2013

In Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, No. 380, 2012, 2013 WL 1364695 (Del. Apr. 4, 2013), the Delaware Supreme Court

Delaware Supreme Court reverses Chancery Court dismissal of derivative plaintiff's Section 220 books and records action

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2011

In King v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., No. 330, 2010, 2011 WL 284966 (Del. Jan. 28, 2011), the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed a decision by the Court of Chancery dismissing a derivative plaintiff’s action under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law seeking books and records of a Delaware corporation

Tenth Circuit affirms high standard for scienter pleading in securities fraud cases against independent auditors

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2011

In Dronsejko v Grant Thornton, Nos 09-4222 and 10-4074, US App LEXIS 1052 (10th Cir. Jan. 20, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissing a securities fraud class action brought by investors in iMergent against its independent auditor, Grant Thornton

Second Circuit holds that no private right of action exists under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 8 2010

In Cohen v Viray, 2010 WL 3785243 (2d Cir Sept 30, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that no private right of action exists under Section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. 7243 (“Section 304”), to recover from chief executive officers (“CEOs”) and chief financial officers (“CFOs”) any bonus or similar compensation, or any profits realized from stock sales, they may have received during the twelve-month period prior to a restatement of company financial statements due to misconduct

Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of Section 14(a) class action holding that a share dilution theory for pleading economic loss is unsupported by case law

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 22 2010

In New York City Employees’ Retirement System v. Jobs, No. 08-16488, 2010 WL 309028 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and fourteen of its officers and directors for the alleged false and misleading proxy solicitation of a stock option plan on the ground that plaintiff-appellant did not adequately plead economic loss in the form of “dilution to shareholder interests.”

California Court of Appeal addresses important issues affecting shareholder derivative claims

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 4 2010

In Bader v. Anderson, No. CV041521, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1880 (Cal. App. Nov. 23, 2009), the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District addressed two important issues affecting shareholder derivative actions under California law