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: 1-3 of 3

Delaware Chancery Court rejects stockholder's Section 220 books and records demand based upon failure to demonstrate "credible basis" for inspection

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 14 2012

In Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Lennar Corp., C.A. No. 7314-VCG, 2012 WL 4760881 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2012), the Delaware Court of Chancery, on a motion for summary judgment, rejected a stockholder’s demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”

Eleventh Circuit affirms dismissal of options backdating securities fraud class action for failure to meet Reform Act's heightened pleading standards

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 12 2010

In Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., No. 09-10954, 2010 WL 154519 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of securities fraud and insider trading claims arising out of options backdating

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.”