Legal Opinion
Beam Ex Rel. M. Stewart Living v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided March 31, 2004No. 501,2003PublishedCited by 345 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VEASEY, Chief Justice.
In this appeal we review and affirm the judgment of the Court of Chancery in dismissing under Rule 23.1 a claim in a derivative suit because the plaintiff failed to make presuit demand on the corporation’s board of directors and failed to demonstrate demand futility. In his opinion, 1 the Chancellor dealt with several issues and provided a detailed account of the facts of the case. We summarize only those facts most pertinent to this appeal. The single issue before us is that of demand futility, no appeal having been taken on the other issues.
• The Chancellor analyzed in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Brehm v. EisnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Grobow v. PerotSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by345 opinions
- Stone v. RitterSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
- F5 Capital v. PappasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Wood v. BaumSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
- In Re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Desimone v. BarrowsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2007
340 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.