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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-2 of 2

Delaware Chancery Court considers scope of Section 220 books and records demand made where sole purpose is to investigate a potential derivative suit

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2011

In Graulich v. Dell, Inc., 2011 WL 1843813 (Del. Ch. May 16, 2011), the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected a stockholder’s demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”

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