Preclusion in Derivative Litigation: New Uncertainty
In their Corporate Litigation column, Joseph M. McLaughlin and Yafit Cohn of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett write: Until the Delaware Supreme Court provides definitive word, managers and stockholders of Delaware corporations must make strategic decisions based on conflicting guidance on whether successive stockholders are barred from seeking to relitigate demand futility allegations.
August 09, 2017 at 02:03 PM
28 minute read
The dismissal of a putative stockholder derivative complaint for failure to make pre-suit demand has long been understood to have preclusive effect against attempts by different stockholders to relitigate the demand issue in another court. These decisions recognize that because a stockholder derivative plaintiff sues in the company's name, privity for preclusion purposes exists between the plaintiffs in the first and subsequent actions making similar allegations because in both, the company is the real party in interest. Two recent Court of Chancery decisions have introduced uncertainty in Delaware and potentially elsewhere by urging that this long-standing derivative preclusion rule violates due process. In In re EZCORP Consulting Agreement Deriv. Litig., 130 A.3d 934 (Del. Ch. 2016), the court stated in dictum that the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's Smith v. Bayer, 564 U.S. 299 (2011), which held that absent class members are non-parties who are not bound by any rulings in the case unless and until a class is certified, should mean that stockholders pursuing derivative actions are not in privity with each other until the action has survived a motion to dismiss for failure to adequately plead demand futility under Rule 23.1. Under this approach, due process would foreclose any preclusive effect of a prior demand futility determination on anyone other than the named stockholder plaintiff. Last month, In re Wal-Mart Stores Delaware Deriv. Litig., 2017 WL 3138201 (Del. Ch. July 25, 2017), adopted and amplified EZCORP, recommending that the Delaware Supreme Court adopt a non-preclusion rule that would permit successive derivative litigation.
Pre-Suit Demand and Preclusion
Derivative claims belong to the corporation, which is why a stockholder must make a demand on the company's board or adequately allege demand futility to pursue derivative claims on the company's behalf. To prevent abuse of the derivative form of suit, as a precondition to seeking to enforce a right of a corporation a stockholder must demonstrate that the corporation refused to proceed as requested after suitable demand, unless demand is excused because particularized allegations create reasonable doubt that a majority of the board could impartially consider a demand.
Parallel lawsuits regarding the same allegations are a familiar dynamic in stockholder litigation. In derivative litigation, recent Delaware decisions have sought to curb fast-filed, inadequately-investigated complaints by emphasizing that when stockholders sue in Delaware in a representative capacity, “first-to-file” does not control which plaintiff and their counsel will be granted the leadership role. When suits are filed in more than one forum, a key strategic objective for defendants is avoiding the burden and expense of litigating the same issues in multiple jurisdictions. Once the first final decision on demand-related allegations is rendered, preclusion doctrine protects these interests by prohibiting different stockholders from relitigating the derivative claim.
A request that one court give preclusive effect to a judgment entered in another court invokes constitutional full faith and credit principles. The preclusive effect of a judgment is determined by the law of the forum in which the judgment was rendered. In Delaware and elsewhere, subject to due process, courts give the same preclusive effect to the judgment of another state or federal court as the original court would give. Pyott v. La. Mun. Police Empls.' Ret. Sys., 74 A.3d 612, 615-16 (Del. 2013).
'Wal-Mart'
In response to a Supreme Court remand from a prior dismissal asking the court to address “the complex question” of whether the demand futility preclusion rule violates due process, Chancellor Andre Bouchard reconsidered and changed his prior ruling and recommended that the Supreme Court adopt the rule proposed in EZCORP. In Wal-Mart, allegations of a bribery scheme engendered derivative suits by different stockholders in Arkansas federal court and Delaware. The Arkansas suit was dismissed for failure to plead demand futility while the Delaware plaintiffs were litigating a books and records demand in an effort to bolster their complaint. The Chancellor dismissed the Delaware action based on the issue-preclusive effect of the Arkansas decision. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court stated that it was “presently satisfied” that the Chancellor properly applied Arkansas privity law and correctly determined that the stockholders in both suits were in privity because in both, the corporation was the real party in interest. The Supreme Court noted that the Delaware plaintiffs could have intervened in the Arkansas suit, but did not. It ruled, however, that the Chancellor had not sufficiently addressed whether precluding the subsequent suit was consistent with due process, specifically pointing to EZCORP, and remanded for consideration of that question.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Enforcements Highlight Risk of Noncompliance—Gone Are 'You Pay Your Money and Takes Your Chance' Days in the U.S.
7 minute readForward-Looking Statements Don't Support Securities Case Against Peloton Following Pandemic Spike
2 minute readSkadden Wins Securities Fraud Dismissal for Israeli Intelligence Company
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250