Facebook Wants Derivative Suit Over Privacy Breaches Tossed to Delaware
Facebook's Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorneys said a clause in the company's charter designated the Delaware business court as the "sole and exclusive forum" for litigating derivative cases against members of the board.
August 13, 2018 at 05:23 PM
4 minute read
Facebook Inc. has asked a federal judge in California to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit that targets the company's directors over their alleged mishandling of users' private data, arguing that the case proceed alongside a similar dispute in Delaware Court of Chancery.
In a court filing Aug. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Facebook's Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorneys said that a clause in the company's charter designated the Delaware business court as the “sole and exclusive forum” for litigating derivative cases against members of the board.
“For this reason, this derivative action should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds,” Facebook said in a motion, signed by Gibson Dunn partner Orin Snyder. “If plaintiffs wish to litigate this derivative lawsuit, they are required under the company's exclusive forum provision to do so in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where a parallel shareholder derivative lawsuit arising out of the same allegations and against the same defendants as this case is pending.”
According to the motion, the Facebook directors are already facing a “virtually identical” lawsuit in the First State, where investors have argued that the board failed to prevent misuse of private user data by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Another shareholder is seeking access to corporate documents in a separate Chancery Court lawsuit accusing the board of violations in responding to the crisis, in which Cambridge Analytica gained access to the information of 87 million Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica, which has been named with Facebook as a defendant in multidistrict litigation, has since filed for bankruptcy in the United States, and its parent has begun dissolution proceedings in the United Kingdom.
Snyder said in Aug. 10's filing that Facebook's forum selection clause was valid and that the plaintiffs could not point to a compelling reason for proceeding in California.
“If anything, enforcing the exclusive forum provision would further public policy considerations by helping to avoid inefficient multi-forum derivative litigation and the risk of conflicting rulings on the same or similar issues,” he wrote.
An attorney for the plaintiffs was not immediately available to comment on Monday. The plaintiffs are represented by Mark C. Molumphy, Joseph W. Cotchett, Brian Danitz, Gina Stassi and Stephanie Biehl of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Facebook has acknowledged that Cambridge Analytica accessed data from millions of its users as part of a software application called “thisisyourdigitallife.” Questions have surfaced over the use of such data during the 2016 election, given that Steve Bannon, who was campaign manager and later a top White House strategist for President Donald Trump, provided financial backing to Cambridge Analytica.
In April, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, said the company knew Cambridge Analytica had improperly obtained user data, but failed to conduct a review of the breaches for more than two years.
Recent media reports, however, have indicated that Facebook struck customized deals with a range of electronics firms, contradicting the company's assurances that it had restricted access to user data in 2015.
In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined more than 30 class actions brought against Facebook and Cambridge Analytica into an MDL in the Northern District of California.
Meanwhile, the company has also been struggling with lower-than-expected profit margins after years of steady growth. Last month, in the largest single-day decline in the company's history, the company lost $120 billion in market value on news that growth in digital advertising has begun to slow.
The California derivative case, captioned In re: Facebook Shareholder Derivative Privacy Litigation, has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr for the Northern District of California.
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
© 2025 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 AllOn The Move: Squire Patton Boggs, Akerman Among Four Firms Adding Atlanta Partners
7 minute readJudge Grills DOJ on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
NBA Players Association Finds Its New GC in Warriors Front Office
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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