In Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Dimon, No. 14-4516 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2016) (summary order), the court grappled with the standard a plaintiff must meet in a shareholder derivative action alleging failure to exercise the Board’s monitoring and oversight duties. Defendants were officers and directors of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and they were alleged to have caused JPMorgan to turn a blind eye to suspicious and illicit misconduct associated with an account associated with Bernie Madoff. In the seminal case of In re Caremark Int’l. Inc. Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), the court stated that “only a sustained or systemic failure of the board to exercise oversight – such as an utter failure to attempt to assure [sic] a reasonable information and reporting system exists – will establish the lack of good faith that is a necessary condition to liability.” Based on this language, plaintiffs argued they need only plead that defendants failed “to attempt to assure a reasonable information and reporting system existed” (emphasis added). Defendants argued for a stricter standard, noting that in Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006), the Delaware Supreme Court interpreted Caremark as requiring proof that “the directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls” (emphasis added). The court noted that Stone was decided by a superior court and was more recent than Caremark, and thus governed the plaintiffs’ claims. Because plaintiffs had only alleged that the defendants “should have had a better reporting system, but not that [they] had no such system,” the court found that there was not a substantial likelihood of personal liability, demand was therefore not futile and not excused, and the complaint should be dismissed.