Legal Opinion
Haber v. Bell
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided June 13, 1983PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.
Defendants have moved to dismiss this shareholder’s derivative suit pursuant to Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23.1 because of plaintiffs’ failure to make a pre-suit demand for redress on the directors of the corporation and the failure of the complaint to state with particularity the futility of making a demand. Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
I
This shareholder’s derivative action was brought by two stockholders of ONEOK, Inc., a Delaware corporation, challenging the action taken by the Board of ONEOK, Inc. in 1981 to amend a stock option plan which…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lewis v. CurtisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
- Kerbs v. California Eastern Airways, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1952
- Beard v. ElsterSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
- Saxe v. BradyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- In Re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., LitigationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- Moran v. Household International, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1985
- In Re the Walt Disney Co. Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1998
- Saltz v. FIRST FRONTIER, LPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Newman v. Family Management Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.