Philip T Besirof

June 22, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Philip T. Besirof and James J. Beha II discuss a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision that turned on the distinction between the standards for pleading shareholder derivative standing in a "demand-excused" case, when the plaintiff argues that demanding the board to take action should be excused as futile, and a "demand-refused" case, where a shareholder seeks to proceed derivatively after a demand has been made and refused.

By Philip T. Besirof and James J. Beha II

10 minute read

June 19, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Philip T. Besirof and James J. Beha II discuss a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision that turned on the distinction between the standards for pleading shareholder derivative standing in a "demand-excused" case, when the plaintiff argues that demanding the board to take action should be excused as futile, and a "demand-refused" case, where a shareholder seeks to proceed derivatively after a demand has been made and refused.

By Philip T. Besirof and James J. Beha II

10 minute read