Blogs

Posts Categorized: Derivative Actions

Posted: October 30, 2015

Court Blasts Derivative Class Action Settlement

On October 23, 2015, Justice Ramos of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Matter of Allied Healthcare Shareholder Litigation, 2015 NY Slip Op. 51552(U), denying a “joint unopposed motion for the entry of an order directing notice to the proposed class and scheduling a hearing on class certification and settlement.” In... Read more »

Posted: October 8, 2015

Claims Direct, Not Derivative, Because Harm Alleged and Relief Sought Were to Plaintiffs

On October 6, 2015, the First Department issued a decision in SFR Holdings Ltd. v. Rice, 2015 NY Slip Op. 07222, upholding claims as direct, not derivative, explaining: As the motion court correctly found, in determining whether plaintiffs’ complaint alleges direct or derivative claims, the relevant analysis is who suffered the alleged harm and who... Read more »

Posted: July 26, 2015

Plaintiff Must Nullify Cancellation Before Bringing A Derivative Action On Behalf Of A Defunct Delaware LLC

On July 6, 2015, Justice Oing of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Meissner v. Yun, 2015 NY Slip Op. 31181(U), granting summary judgment against all of a plaintiff’s derivative claims. Meissner involved the disputed ownership of a Delaware LLC, and the plaintiff advanced a number of claims—breach of fiduciary duty,... Read more »

Posted: April 5, 2015

First Department Examines Demand Futility

On April 2, 2015, the First Department issued a decision in Bodner v. Grunstein, 2015 NY Slip Op. 02849, reversing a trial court dismissal of a derivative claim for failure to make a demand on the company. The First Department explained that Plaintiff set forth sufficiently particularized facts to raise a reasonable doubt that defendant... Read more »

Posted: February 5, 2015

Damages in Derivative Action Must go to Corporation, Not Plaintiff

On January 28, 2015, the Second Department issued a decision in Sakow v. Waldman, 2015 NY Slip Op. 00742, regarding the distribution of a damages award in a derivative action. In Sakow, the plaintiff, who brought an action both individually and derivativly regarding the management of a real estate investment, prevailed at trial and was... Read more »

Posted: January 19, 2015

Shareholder Has Standing to Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim

On January 13, 2015, the First Department issued a decision in Scott v. Pro Management Services Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op. 00318, illustrating the circumstances under which a shareholder has standing to assert a claim for unjust enrichment. It explained: Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is direct, and not derivative, because plaintiff suffered the alleged... Read more »

Posted: January 5, 2015

Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel from Defending Both the Nominal Defendant and Other Defendants in a Derivative Action

On December 30, 2014, the First Department issued a decision in Stilwell Value Partners IV, L.P. v. Cavanaugh, 2014 NY Slip Op. 09061, denying a motion to disqualify counsel. In Stilwell Value Partners, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify a nominal defendant’s counsel in a derivative action, explaining: Plaintiff failed to show that... Read more »

Posted: October 15, 2014

Action for Corporate Waste Cannot be Brought Against the Former Sole Owner of a Company

On October 14, 2014, Justice Demarest of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Koryeo Intl. Corp. v. Kyung Ja Hong, 2014 NY Slip Op. 51495(U), dismissing an action for corporate waste and breach of contract. The plaintiff, Steve Hong, who brought the action on his own behalf, and directly on behalf of... Read more »

Posted: October 11, 2014

First Department Discusses Differences Between Direct and Derivative Claims

On September 30, 2014, the First Department issued a decision in Serino v. Lipper, 2014 NY Slip Op. 06551, explaining the differences between direct and derivative claims. In Serino, a “complex, multi-party litigation, extending over a period of 12 years,” the cross-claim plaintiff sought “three categories of damages in connection with his cross claims”: “the... Read more »