Legal Opinion

Leal v. Meeks

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided May 14, 2015No. 564, 2014; No. 706, 2014PublishedCited by 154 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STRINE, Chief Justice:

I. INTRODUCTION

These appeals were scheduled for argument on the same day because they turn on a single legal question: in an action for damages against corporate fiduciaries, where the plaintiff challenges an interested transaction that is presumptively subject to entire fairness review, must the plaintiff plead a non-exculpated claim against the disinterested, independent directors to survive a motion to dismiss by those directors? 1 We answer that question in the affirmative. A plaintiff seeking only monetary damages must plead non-exculpated claims against a director…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1983
  2. Malpiede v. TownsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
  3. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1986
  4. Beam Ex Rel. M. Stewart Living v. StewartSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004
  5. Emerald Partners v. BerlinSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999

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

3Cited by154 opinions

  1. RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. JervisSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
  2. Sandys Ex Rel. Zynga Inc. v. PincusSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  3. Singh v. AttenboroughSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  4. SFF-TIR, LLC v. StephensonDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2017
  5. In re EZCORP INC. Consulting Agreement Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2016

149 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