Law of the case precluded settlement objector's challenge to the adequacy of consideration where revised settlement merely deleted provisions improperly releasing future claims and the court had previously found the retained provisions fair and beneficial to the corporation and its stockholders.

Court reversed the chancery court's decision approving a litigation settlement which included forward-looking statements that bound absent interested parties from bringing claims in the future, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

The entire fairness standard of review applied to the question of director self-compensation.

Superior court erred in upholding the lower courts decision on the unenforceability of appellant non-attorneys fee splitting agreement with appellee attorneys because the action was not per se barred by the violation of rule 5.4 of the rules of professional responsibility since the conduct rules ought not be interposed into substantive law. Reversed.

Derivative complaint properly dismissed for failure to make litigation demand where stockholders allegations only established exculpated claim for directors bad faith, rather than personal liability for companys environmental violations.

Cite as: PA School Reti v. BOA, 11cv733, NYLJ 1202776020181, at *1 (SDNY, Decided December 27, 2016)CASE NAMEPennsylvania Public School Employees' Reti

Cite as: Pension Fund v. Bell, 652020/13, NYLJ 1202754109042, at *1 (App. Div., 1st, Decided March 31, 2016)CASE NAMEAsbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund

District Judge Peter K. Leisure U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK William J. Ban, Esq. Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Barrack, Rodos & Ba

Cite as: Greenlight Capital, L.P. v. Apple, Inc., 13 Civ. 976, NYLJ 1202590550081, at *1 (SDNY, Decided February 22, 2013)District Judge Richard Sull