In Re Baxter International, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BALICK, Vice Chancellor.
These are consolidated stockholder derivative actions. Defendants move to dismiss for failure to plead with particularity reasons for not demanding action by the directors, as required by Rule 23.1.
I
The identical complaints were filed following the public announcement of allegations of wrongdoing by Baxter International, Inc. (“Baxter”). The complaint names eighteen individual defendants. Of the seventeen directors, two are current officers and one is a former officer. The remaining defendant is an officer but not a director.
The following is a summary…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1963
- Miller v. SchreyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by67 opinions
- In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1996
- Guttman v. HuangCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
- Wood v. BaumSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
- In Re Walt Disney Co. Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2005
- Desimone v. BarrowsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2007
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.