Legal Opinion

Rich ex rel. Fuqi International, Inc. v. Yu Kwai Chong

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 25, 2013No. Civil Action No. 7616-VCGPublishedCited by 45 opinions

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

  1. Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  2. Brehm v. EisnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  3. Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLCSupreme Court of Delaware · 2011
  4. Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  5. 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

  1. Espinoza v. DimonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
  2. Think3 Litigation Trust v. Zuccarello (In re Think3, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 2015
  3. In re Saic Inc. Derivative LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
  4. In re Wells Fargo & Co. S'holder Derivative Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
  5. Morefield v. BaileyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2013

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API