Rich ex rel. Fuqi International, Inc. v. Yu Kwai Chong
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GLASSCOCK, Vice Chancellor.
I. OVERVIEW
The Plaintiff here, a stockholder, made a demand to the Defendant corporation, asking the corporation to prosecute claims against its officers and directors for violating their Caremark duties. The individual Defendants not only failed to respond to the demand over the next two years, but allegedly took actions making a meaningful response to the demand unlikely if not impossible. Under these facts, the Plaintiff may pursue an action on behalf of the *966corporation derivatively, notwithstanding Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.
[[Image here]]
This Opinion…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Brehm v. EisnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLCSupreme Court of Delaware · 2011
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Espinoza v. DimonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- Think3 Litigation Trust v. Zuccarello (In re Think3, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 2015
- In re Saic Inc. Derivative LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- In re Wells Fargo & Co. S'holder Derivative Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Morefield v. BaileyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2013
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.