Legal Opinion

Bergstein v. Texas International Co.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided October 12, 1982PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.

Defendants moved to dismiss this stockholder’s derivative suit because plaintiffs did not make a demand for corrective action on the Board of Directors of the corporation before instituting suit and arguably did not allege with sufficient particularity in the complaint the reasons for failing to make a demand. The motion is without merit and must be denied.

I

On July 7, 1981 plaintiff-Weinberger brought this stockholder’s derivative action against the corporate defendant, Texas International Company, and the individual defendants, who are directors of Texas…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  2. Lewis v. CurtisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  3. In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,297 Charles Heit v. Walter S. BairdCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
  5. Galef v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  2. McCall v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  3. Marx v. AkersNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Fujimoto v. AuHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Spillyards v. AbboudAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996

11 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