Case Title: Laborers' District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al. v. Bensoussan, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Laborers' District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al. v. Bensoussan, et al.  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION FUND and HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS’ PERSONNEL RETIREMENT FUND, derivatively on behalf of LULULEMON ATHLETICA, INC., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. ROBERT BENSOUSSAN, MICHAEL CASEY, ROANN COSTIN, CHRISTINE M. DAY, WILLIAM H. GLENN, MARTHA A.M. MORFITT, RHODA M. PITCHER, THOMAS G. STEMBERG, JERRY STRITZKE, EMILY WHITE and DENNIS J. WILSON, Defendants Below, Appellees, - and LULULEMON ATHLETICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant Below, Nominal Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 358, 2016 Court Below: Chancery Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 11293 Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices; LEGROW, Judge,* constituting the Court en Banc. ORDER This 3rd day of February 2017, the Court having considered this matter after oral argument and on the briefs filed by the parties has determined that the final judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery in its opinion dated June 14, 2016.1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 1 The Appellants’ argument that the New York Action could not be preclusive against them because their attempt to intervene in that case to protect their interests was denied, relying on Parkoff v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 425 N.E.2d 820 (N.Y. 1981), is waived because it was not fairly presented to the trial court. We are not persuaded that it should be considered under Rule 8. * Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV, § 12.