Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07644/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07644-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

YEUNG BING KWONG KENNETH, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

YEUNG CHI SHING HOLDING (DELAWARE),

INC., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-07644-YGR 

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT 

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF KENNETH’S INDIVIDUAL 

CLAIM 7 AND TO STRIKE CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF SEEKING PLAINTIFF KENNETH’S 

REINSTATEMENT AS DIRECTOR

Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 45, 55 

Individual plaintiff Yeung Bing Kwong Kenneth (“Kenneth”), and entity plaintiffs Prestige 

Holdings Ltd. (“Prestige”), and Commercial Triumph Ltd. (“Commercial,” together, “entity 

plaintiffs”) bring this derivative and individual action against entity defendants Yeung Chi Shing 

Holding (Delaware), Inc (“Yeung Holding”), and Mount Oscar Limited (“Mt. Oscar,” together 

“entity defendants”), and individual defendants Yeung Ping Leung Howard (“Howard”), Yeung 

Luk Pui Lan Agnes (“Agnes”), Fung Chung Yee Caroline (“Fung”), Cheung Kit Man Melina 

(“Cheung,” and, collectively, “director defendants” or “individual defendants”).1

 Kenneth, 

Prestige, and Commercial bring a second amended complaint concerning an alleged ongoing 

earning stripping and tax evasion scheme based on purported management and advisory fees that 

was initiated in 2015. (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) Plaintiffs bring eight derivative and individual claims 

against defendants. The six derivative claims asserted by the entity plaintiffs include: (i) violation 

1

 As discussed herein, because this matter involves multiple individuals from the same 

family, here the Yeung family, the Court adopts the parties’ convention in addressing Yeung 

family parties by first name to avoid confusion. 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 18
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), against 

director defendants and Mt. Oscar; (ii) violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), against director 

defendants and Mt. Oscar; (iii) breach of the duty of loyalty against director defendants; 

(iv) breach of the duty of good faith against director defendants; (v) breach of the duty of care 

against director defendants.; and (vi) declaratory relief to establish that advisor fees and other 

diversions were improperly and illegally paid in violation of federal and state law. Kenneth also 

asserts the following two individual claims: (vii) wrongful removal pursuant to 8 Delaware Code 

§ 225 against director defendants; and (viii) declaratory relief that Kenneth is not liable for 

director defendants’ actions. 

Now before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed by defendants. First, director 

defendants seek to dismiss claim 7 under Rule 12(b)(1), or alternatively Rule 12(b)(6), and to 

strike claims for relief seeking plaintiff Kenneth’s reinstatement as director under Rule 12(f). 

(Dkt. No. 42.) Second, Yeung Holding seeks to dismiss the operative second amended complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23.1. (Dkt. No. 45.) Third, Mt. Oscar substantively joins Yeung 

Holding’s motion to dismiss.2 (Dkt. No. 55.) 

Having carefully reviewed the pleadings, the papers submitted on each motion, the parties’ 

oral arguments at the hearing held on December 17, 2019, and for the reasons set forth more fully 

below, the Court finds that plaintiffs are inadequate representatives under Rule 23.1. Accordingly, 

the Court GRANTS Yeung Holding’s and Mt. Oscar’s motion to dismiss the second amended 

complaint and DENIES AS MOOT individual defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Kenneth’s 

Individual Claim 7 and to strike claims for relief seeking plaintiff Kenneth’s reinstatement. 

However, given the severity of the allegations, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs leave to amend to 

substitute a proper plaintiff. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The Court summarizes the allegations from the operative second amended complaint. 

2

 The individual defendants also join Yeung Holding’s motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. 

No. 49 (notice of joinder).) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 18
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Subject-matter jurisdiction in this case is asserted under federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis of the RICO claims in the first two causes of action. (Dkt. No. 40 at ¶ 

12.) The Court is alleged to have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims – asserted 

derivatively on behalf of Yeung Holding, by the entity plaintiffs and individually on plaintiff’s 

own behalf, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. (Id.) 

A. The Relevant Entities 

The matter concerns the corporate governance of a family-owned business in Hong Kong, 

China. The ultimate parent company in this matter is Hong Kong, China company Yeung Chi 

Shing Estates, Ltd. (“Estates”). (Id. at ¶ 1.) Estates is owned through entities either owned and/or 

controlled by Kenneth and Kenneth’s siblings, and Kenneth’s deceased sibling’s surviving widow. 

(Id. at ¶ 4.) Estates owns and controls defendant Yeung Holding as follows: Estates owns 65.70% 

of Oro Holdings, Ltd., a British Virgin Islands entity (“Oro BVI”); Oro BVI, in turn, wholly owns 

Oro Holdings, Inc., a Barbados entity (“Oro Barbados”); Oro Barbados, in turn, wholly owns 

Yeung Holding. (Id. at ¶ 16.) In 1986, Estates acquired a 99.5% controlling interest in defendant 

Mt. Oscar. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Estates, Oro BVI, and Oro Barbados are not parties to this litigation. 

Defendant Yeung Holding is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of 

business in San Francisco, California. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 18.) Yeung Holding was formed by Kenneth’s 

late father Yeung Chi Wan (“Chi Wan”) in 1981 to invest in United States real estate. (Id. at ¶ 

18.) Yeung Holding serves as the parent corporation to a large number of United States entities 

that hold United States real estate, approximately two-third of which are organized under 

California law and have their principal place of business in California. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 18.) Yeung 

Holding is the highest-level United States subsidiary and owns real estate assets in California and 

New York worth millions or billions of United States dollars. (Id. at ¶ 5.) 

Defendant Mt. Oscar is a Hong Kong, China company. (Id. at ¶ 23.) At the time it was 

acquired in 1986, Mt. Oscar was a “shelf company,” meaning that it had existed for a period of 

time but had conducted no business activity. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Mt. Oscar has never held any Yeung 

family assets or engaged in any trade or business. (Id.) 

The entity plaintiffs, Prestige and Commercial, are each British Virgin Islands companies 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 18
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and shareholders of Estates. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Kenneth is a director of both entity plaintiffs, and 

signed the verification statement attached to the second amended complaint on behalf of the entity 

plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 15, pp. 39-40.) 

B. The Individual Parties 

Plaintiff Kenneth is a citizen of Canada and Hong Kong China, presently residing in Hong 

Kong, China, and is a former director of Estates through a nominee entity.3 (Dkt. No. 40 at ¶ 14.) 

Kenneth is a director of both Commercial and Prestige. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Kenneth was also a director 

of Yeung Holding, Mt. Oscar, and a number of Estates’ other United States subsidiaries until 

sometime in 2017. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Kenneth was removed as a director from Yeung Holding without 

notice, and now contends that his removal is unlawful and void. (Id.) 

Defendant Howard is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, China. (Id. at 

¶ 19.) At all relevant times, Howard served and currently serves as a director of Yeung Holding 

and Mt. Oscar. (Id.) Howard further sits on several United States subsidiaries owned by Yeung 

Holding. (Id.) Howard is Kenneth’s younger brother. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 28.) 

Defendant Agnes is a citizen of Hong Kong, China and the United States. (Id. at ¶ 21.) 

Agnes is the widow of Yeung Bing Kin Alan (“Alan”), one of Kenneth’s deceased brothers. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 21, 28.) Since late 2016, Agnes has served and currently serves as director of Yeung 

Holding and Mt. Oscar. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Agnes maintains some ownership and/or control over 

Estates through the estate of Alan. (Id. at ¶ 28.) 

Defendant Fung is a citizen of Canada and Hong Kong, China. (Id. at ¶ 20.) At all relevant 

times, Fung served and currently serves as a director of Yeung Holding. (Id.) Fung was 

3

 Although not explicitly referenced in the Second Amended Complaint, the allegations 

imply that the “nominee entit[ies]” through which Kenneth owns Estates include both Prestige and 

Commercial, as well as through Kennet Nominee Ltd. No allegation is included in the second 

amended complaint as to Kenneth’s ownership interest in the entity plaintiffs or Kennet Nominee 

Ltd. (See also Dkt. 1 at 2 (referring to entities as “Kenneth nominees,” and “Kenneth’s whollyowned companies”); Dkt. No. 13 (first amended complaint) (“Kenneth, through the Kenneth 

Nominees (Plaintiff Prestige Holding Ltd. And Plaintiff Commercial Triumph Ltd., both Hong 

Kong China companies), was and is a shareholder – and a former director – of Estates.”); Dkt. No. 

57 at 11 (opposition) (“[T]he Entity Plaintiffs – and by extension Kenneth – can adequately 

represent the interests of other shareholders through the derivative claims.”).) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 18
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

appointed tax consultant of Estates in May 2014. (Id.) Fung has admitted that she has never 

actually been qualified as a United Kingdom charted account. (Id. at ¶ 38.) 

Defendant Cheung is a citizen of Hong Kong, China. (Id.at ¶ 22.) At all relevant times, 

Cheung served and currently serves as a director of Yeung Holding. 

C. General Allegations 

 In short, Kenneth alleges the existence of an ongoing earnings stripping and tax evasion 

scheme initiated in 2015 by some Yeung family members, including one or more of the individual 

defendants, that was facilitated unwittingly by a major United States based international law firm. 

(Id. at ¶¶ 1, 31, 37, 39-41.) The scheme involves the payment of almost US $15 million in 

purported “management and advisory fees” by Yeung Holding to Mt. Oscar, in exchange for 

“management and advisory services” for the management of the United States real estate holdings 

that were never actually provided by Mt. Oscar or by the ultimate recipients, Kenneth and the 

individual defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 32-33.) The scheme also involves other types of preferential 

payments, including a US $3.4 million “incentive bonus,” and personal and inflated staff 

expenses, that resulted in Yeung Holding and its subsidiaries taking such expenses as business 

deductions. (Id.) The motivation for this scheme was to evade paying required United States 

federal and state taxes, and to allow certain Yeung family members to improperly receive a much 

greater percentage of corporate funds than they normally would receive based upon their 

percentage shareholder interests in Estates. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 32-33, 35-36.) 

The Court chronologically summarizes the actions in the alleged scheme according to the 

second amended complaint: On November 10, 2015, a United States based global law firm issued 

a memorandum analyzing and evaluating the proper arms-length valuation of the advisor fees the 

law firm was told would be paid by Yeung Holding to Mt. Oscar for advisor services. (Id. at ¶ 40.) 

At that time, the directors of Mt. Oscar were Kenneth, Howard, and Alan. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Fung was 

the tax consultant to Mt. Oscar and Cheung was company’s secretary. (Id.) Kenneth was not 

provided a copy of the memorandum in advance of the board meeting where it was first discussed. 

(Id.) 

Based on the information provided to him, including the memo, and based on Alan’s 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 18
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

reputation for being heavily involved in the Yeung Holding real estate business, Howard’s 

support, and Fung’s professional advice as a tax consultant, Kenneth believed that Mt. Oscar 

would render advisor services in exchange for reasonable advisor fees. (Id. at ¶¶ 41, 42.) 

Accordingly, On March 3, 2016, Mt. Oscar directors, including Kenneth, adopted written 

resolutions, without a meeting, approving the advisor agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 42, 50.) This approval 

was made effective retroactively to April 1, 2015, the date on which Mt. Oscar supposedly began 

providing advisor services to Yeung Holding. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Yeung Holding’s board, of which 

Kenneth was a director, also passed a similar resolution approving the advisor agreement. (Id. at 

¶ 42.) 

From 2015 until at least 2017, Kenneth alleges that he is unaware of Mt. Oscar or anyone 

on Mt. Oscar’s behalf ever performing any services on behalf of Yeung Holding. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

Kenneth was never asked to perform any services in exchange for payments he received. (Id. at 

¶¶ 7, 47.) Neither Mt. Oscar nor anyone on its behalf actually rendered any advisor services to 

Yeung Holding or its subsidiaries. (Id. at ¶¶ 36, 47.) Between this time period, specifically 

January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2017, Yeung Holding paid HK $113,694,467 (US $14,765,515) in 

pre-tax advisor fees. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Kenneth, Howard, Agnes, and Yeung Ho Wai Ping (“Ping”), a 

current director of Mt. Oscar and the widow of Kenneth’s brother Raymond, received advisor fees 

in the same amounts as Kenneth. (Id. at ¶¶ 44, 46.) Kenneth’s sisters, Yeung Bick Yee Amy 

(“Amy”) and Yeung Eng Yee Janet (“Janet”), each received a consultancy fee half of the amount 

received by Kenneth. (Id. at ¶ 44.) 

Financial statements from Mt. Oscar indicate that that the payment for advisor services 

were split between a “Consultancy Fee” and “Director’s Remuneration.” (Id. at ¶¶ 45, 46.) 

Kenneth, Alan and then later Agnes after Alan’s death, Howard, and Ping received the Director’s 

Remuneration amounts. (Id. at ¶ 46.) The Consultancy Fee was paid to other Yeung family 

members that were not directors of Mt. Oscar. (Id.) The fees constituted part of a scheme where 

no individual did any work for either Yeung Holding or Mt. Oscar, and payments would flow to 

Howard, Agnes, and other Yeung family members. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-49.) Kenneth also received 

advisor fees payments from April 2016 to May 2018. (Id. at ¶ 48.) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 18
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Following Alan’s passing in September 2016, Kenneth began making inquiries into the 

propriety and legality of the advisor fees in person and in several letters in July and September 

2017. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-52.) Kenneth continued making inquiries as to the legality of the fees and the 

work being performed in exchanged for these fees through several letters and in board meetings in 

2017. (Id. at ¶¶ 53-57.) 

In retaliation for these inquiries, Kenneth’s nominee, Kennet Nominee Limited, was not reelected as a member of Estates’ board of directors at the annual general meeting in December 

2017. (Id. at ¶ 58.) At some point in 2017, Kenneth had also been removed as a director of Yeung 

Holding, and several other Yeung family owned subsidiaries. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-63.) A January 27, 

2018 notice for Mt. Oscar directors included an agenda item to remove Kenneth as a director of 

Mt. Oscar at the January 31, 2018 board meeting in Hong Kong, China. (Id. at ¶ 58.) In response, 

Kenneth sent a letter on January 31, 2018 again outlining his concerns over the payment of advisor 

fees made by Yeung Holding to Mt. Oscar given that nobody was performing services for Yeung 

Holding; Mt. Oscar directors did not refute or rebut these statements, and did not provide any 

information on the services performed for Yeung Holding.4 (Id. at ¶¶ 59, 60.) Kenneth was 

ultimately removed as a director of Mt. Oscar on March 9, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 61.) 

From the date of the Mt. Oscar approval of the advisor agreement in March 2016 to the 

date when Kenneth was removed from the Mt. Oscar board in March 2018, Kenneth received 

approximately US $3.7 million in advisor fees. (Id. at ¶ 64.) Kenneth alleges that he has 

deposited all of the funds he has received for advisor fees in a separate bank account and that, 

upon a judicial finding, he will promptly return all such funds he has received to the appropriate 

recipient. (Id.) Since Kenneth’s departure, Mt. Oscar released a document dated October 15, 

4

 The Court notes that the second amended complaint also contains some allegations of 

some work being performed by some of the other individuals. Howard performed acts including 

“[d]irecting and participating in the management of [Yeung Holding]’s U.S. operations,” and 

made “frequent trips” to the United States to monitor properties. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Agnes, Fung, and 

Cheung performed acts that included directing and participating in the management of Yeung 

Holding, (Id. at ¶¶ 20, 21, 22) and Fung also coordinated the hiring of advisors on behalf of at 

least one subsidiary of Yeung Holding. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Kenneth also “knew that Alan was heavily 

involved in the Yeung Family’s U.S. real estate business and believed Alan was knowledgeable 

about real estate investments” before his death. (Id. at ¶ 41.) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 18
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2018 confirming that payments are for advisor fees, and explicitly referencing Kenneth’s earlier 

payments. (Id. at ¶ 65.) 

D. Other Relevant Background5

Kenneth has brought several lawsuits in Hong Kong, China with respect to both the Estates 

and Mt. Oscar boards, as well as against the individual defendants. The Court summarizes these 

lawsuits below. 

Mt. Oscar’s Board. In May 2018, Kenneth sued Mt. Oscar seeking to invalidate his 

removal from the Mt. Oscar board, and enjoin further resolutions to remove him. (Dkt. No. 47-1 

(Kenneth Yeung v. Mount Oscar Limited, HCMP 773/2018).) The court ruled against Kenneth in 

December 2018. (Id.) The appeal was dismissed in June 2019. (Dkt. No. 47-2 (Kenneth Young v. 

Mount Oscar Limited, CACV 26/2019).) 

Estates’ Board. In September 2017, Kenneth and his nominee entity sued Estates and 

Howard, among others, and claimed Kenneth or his nominee entity should be chairman of the 

Estates board under an alleged “rotation agreement” among family members for the year 

commencing in April 1, 2017. (Dkt. No. 47-3 (Kenneth Yeung v. Kennet Nominee Limited v. 

Yeung Chi Shing Estates Limited, HCA 1564/2017).) Kenneth and his nominee entity amended 

his statement of claim in March 2018 to change a number of details. (Id.) According to Yeung 

Holding, this case has not progressed any further. (Dkt. No. 45 at 14.) 

Foundation Shareholders. In 2017, Kenneth sued Howard and one of the foundations that 

owns Estates, among other entities, related to the governance issues of the foundation. (Dkt. No. 

47-4 (Kenneth Yeung v. Howard Yeung, HCMP 1455/2017).) Kenneth received an adverse 

5

 Yeung Holding requests that the Court takes judicial notice of related proceedings in 

other jurisdictions, including in Hong Kong, China. (See Dkt. No. 48.) “[Courts] may take notice 

of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those 

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 

(9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, courts may take judicial notice of foreign judgments and court 

documents. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 113, 205–06 (1895); Yuen v. U.S. Stock Transfer Co., 966 F. Supp. 944, 945 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (granting defendant’s request for judicial notice of 

filings submitted in a British Virgin Islands proceeding in connection with defendant’s motion to 

dismiss); In re Ex Parte Application of Jommi, No. C 13–80212, 2013 WL 6058201, at *1 n.1 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013) (taking judicial notice of “foreign court documents”). Accordingly, and 

in light of no opposition received, the Court GRANTS Yeung Holding’s request for judicial notice. 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 18
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

decision in June 2019. (Id.) 

Alleged Defamation. In November 2017, Kenneth sued Agnes, Howard, and Cheung for 

defamation against him. (Dkt. No. 47-5.) Kenneth alleges that Agnes, Howard, and Cheung 

defamed him by accusing him of harassment and uncivil conduct. (Id. at 11-20.) According to 

Yeung Holding, the matter has not progressed after the parties filed and served defenses and 

replies. (Dkt. No. 45 at 15.) 

Withdrawn Action. In December 2017, Kenneth sued Estates, Howard, and Agnes, among 

others, to declare a board meeting void and invalid as part of Kenneth’s attempt to stop other 

shareholders from not re-electing Kenneth’s nominee company as a director of estates. (Dkt. No. 

47-6.) Kenneth subsequently withdrew this action. (Dkt. No. 47-7.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal for failure to state a claim 

under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 

1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988)). 

The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face 

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). If the facts alleged do not support a reasonable inference of liability, stronger than a mere 

possibility, the claim must be dismissed. Id. at 678-79; see also In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 

F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that a court is not required to accept as true “allegations 

that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”). 

A complaint that falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 18
10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to 

support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 

1104 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] 

factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most 

favorable to a nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 

1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Mere “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are 

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

III. YEUNG HOLDING AND MT. OSCAR’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Yeung Holding and Mt. Oscar, joined by the individual defendants, contend that the entity 

plaintiffs are inadequate representatives under Rule 23.1 to pursue derivative claims. Plaintiffs 

oppose Yeung Holding and Mt. Oscar’s motions, and contend that they are adequate 

representatives under Rule 23.1. 

A shareholder derivative action may only be maintained by a representative who will 

“fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members who are similarly 

situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1. 

Shareholder derivative suits are generally “a remedy of last resort.” Kayes v. Pac. Lumber Co., 51 

F.3d 1449, 1463 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). This follows from the “basic principle of 

corporate governance that the decisions of a corporation—including the decision to initiate 

litigation—should be made by the board of directors.” Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 

U.S. 90, 101 (1991) (citation omitted). “In general, a derivative suit must be in the company’s 

best interest in order to proceed.” In re RH S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 18-CV-02452-YGR, 

2019 WL 580668, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019). 

First and foremost, “[a]n adequate representative must have the capacity to vigorously and 

conscientiously prosecute a derivative suit and be free from economic interests that are 

antagonistic to the interests of the class.” Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(citations omitted). Other factors to consider to determine adequacy of representation include: 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 18
11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(1) indications that the plaintiff is not the true party in interest; 

(2) the plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with the litigation and unwillingness 

to learn about the suit; 

(3) the degree of control exercised by the attorneys over the 

litigation; 

(4) the degree of support received by the plaintiff from other 

shareholders; . . . 

(5) the lack of any personal commitment to the action on the part of 

the representative plaintiff; . . . 

(6) the remedy sought by plaintiff in the derivative action; 

(7) the relative magnitude of plaintiff’s personal interests as 

compared to his interest in the derivative action itself; and 

(8) plaintiff’s vindictiveness toward the defendants. 

Id. (citations omitted). “Courts may also consider a potential representative's outside 

entanglements making it likely that the interests of the other stockholders will be disregarded in 

the management of the suit.” RePET Inc. v. Zhao, EDCV 15-2315-VAP (SPx), 2016 WL 

11518482, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Defendants bear 

the burden of proof to show [that a p]laintiff is not an adequate representative under Rule 23.1.” 

Id. (citing Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Dev. Corp., C 07-2361-JSW, 2009 WL 3353445, at *9 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 19, 2009); Quantum Tech. Partners I, L.P. v. Altman Browning and Co., No. 08-cv-376-

BR, 2009 WL 1795574, at *7 (D. Or. June 23, 2009)). 

Here, defendants have met their burden because Prestige and Commercial cannot 

demonstrate that they are free of economic interests that are antagonistic to the class. Kenneth, as 

a director and the individual who controls both Prestige and Commercial, is not free of any 

economic interests that are adverse to the interests of the other shareholders. Kenneth was a 

director on the board of both Yeung Holding and Mt. Oscar during the relevant time period. As a 

director, he personally twice approved the agreement underlying the purported scheme, and further 

received the fees for which he now contends are improper and illegal. Kenneth therefore has a 

monetary interest in minimizing his own ultimate liability.6

 Indeed, this minimization is readily 

apparent in the second amended complaint where Kenneth is seeking to hold every director on the 

6

 Plaintiffs explicitly concede in the opposition brief that Kenneth’s “personal economic 

interests would actually be furthered by not pursuing the derivative claims here.” (Dkt. No. 57 at 

20 (emphasis original); see also id. at 4 (“Kenneth’s own pecuniary interests will actually be 

harmed if the Plaintiffs succeed in this action, as he will have to return US$3.7 million to [Yeung 

Holding] if the Court grants the Plaintiffs the relief they seek.”).) 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 18
12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

board of Mt. Oscar and Yeung Holding but himself accountable for higher damages including 

treble damages.7 (See Dkt. No. 40 at ¶¶ 77 (treble damages for Mt. Oscar and individual 

defendants), 78 (same).) Kenneth cites to no authority – and the Court can find none – where 

Rule 23.1 has permitted a director who is involved in a purported illegal scheme with other board 

members to represent shareholders in a derivative suit under Rule 23.1 through entities wholly 

owned and controlled by that director.8 Cf. RePET Inc., 2016 L 11518482, at *6 (declining to 

disqualify plaintiff as a Rule 23.1 representative on the limited record before the court where 

plaintiff was a member of the board of directors but refused to sign a personal guaranty to further 

fraud and subsequently resigned from the board before fraudulent activity was committed). Such 

a situation strains the requirements imposed by Rule 23.1 that mandate that the representative in a 

derivative “fairly and adequately” protect absent shareholders. 

Consideration of the relevant eight factors in Larson further confirms that plaintiffs are not 

adequate representatives under Rule 23.1. Under the first Larson factor, “indications that the 

plaintiff not the true party in interest,” the record is clear that the true party in interest is Kenneth, 

not Prestige or Commercial. Indeed, plaintiff’s opposition brief is replete with concessions that 

both Prestige and Commercial are extensions of Kenneth.9 (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 57 at 16 (“Here, 

review of the relevant Larson factors demonstrates that the Entity Plaintiffs – and by extension 

7

 As will be discussed, the Court cannot determine how it would be fair under Rule 23.1 to 

absent shareholders to hold Kenneth to a different standard as compared to the other individual 

defendants. 

8

 Kenneth’s arguments at the December 17, 2019 hearing that he had a sincere belief when 

he signed the agreement that services would be performed in exchange for payment but was later 

duped or tricked are contradicted by the allegations in the second amended complaint. As alleged, 

nobody performed services on behalf of Mt. Oscar for Yeung Holding, (Dkt. No. 40 at ¶55) and 

yet, when the agreement was executed by Kenneth and the other directors in March 2016, the 

approval was backdated to April 1, 2015 to cover prior alleged work performed for Yeung 

Holding. (Id. at ¶42 (“This approval was made effective retroactively to April 1, 2015, the date on 

which Mt. Oscar supposedly began providing Advisor Services to [Yeung Holding].”).) Thus, 

under these allegations, Kenneth would have been aware when he twice approved the agreement 

that no work had been performed on behalf of Mt. Oscar for Yeung Holding. 

9

 Kenneth signing the required verification statement attached to the second amended 

complaint on behalf of the entity plaintiffs further confirms that it is he, and not the entity 

plaintiffs, who is the true party in interest in this derivative lawsuit. 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 18
13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Kenneth – can adequately represent the interests of the other shareholders through the derivative 

claims.”); at 9 (“Defendants have not shown – and could not have shown if they truly tried – that 

either the Entity Plaintiffs or Kenneth are ‘vindictive’ towards the Defendants. Rather, the SAC 

reveals that Kenneth’s efforts to remedy . . . have been completely necessary. . . . Again, Kenneth 

is merely requesting a ‘seat at the table’ to protect [Yeung Holding]’s ultimate beneficiaries: 

Estates’ shareholders.”).) Courts have gone beyond an entity plaintiff to the owner or principal to 

determine whether there is a conflict in serving as an adequate representative under Rule 23.1. See 

G.A. Enterprises, Inc. v. Leisure Living Cmty., Inc., 517 F.2d 24, 26 (1st Cir. 1975) (rejecting 

plaintiff corporation’s use of derivative suit under rule 23 stating that plaintiff’s corporation’s 

“own interests, or at least the interests of its principal, suggest that from its standpoint the ‘highest 

and best’ use of the derivative suit would be as a weapon in the total [principal’s] arsenal”). The 

Court finds, in light of the record and pleadings, that Kenneth, and not the entity plaintiffs, is the 

true party in interest in this matter. 

Moreover, the Court notes that since removed allegations concerning ownership of the 

entity plaintiffs demonstrate that Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs are one and the same. The 

originally filed complaint alleged Kenneth brought the derivative claims on his own behalf. (See 

Dkt. No. 1.) In the subsequently filed first amended complaint, Kenneth was replaced with the 

“Kenneth Nominees,” Commercial and Prestige, and alleged that (i) Kenneth was the sole 

shareholder of the Kenneth Nominees, and (ii) it was Kenneth who continued to bring the 

derivative claims via the Kenneth Nominees. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) The second amended 

complaint relabeled the Kenneth Nominees as entity plaintiffs, removed the ownership allegation, 

and added that Kenneth is a director of the entity plaintiffs. (See generally Dkt. No. 40.) Thus, 

this Larson factor weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs from serving as representatives 

under Rule 23.1. 

Although the defendants argued otherwise in their briefing and at the December 17, 2019 

hearing, the Court finds that the second and third factors, “the plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with the 

litigation and unwillingness to learn about the suit” and “the degree of control exercised by the 

attorneys over the litigation,” weigh in favor of Kenneth. Given Kenneth’s role, the Court is 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 18
14 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

satisfied that he is intimately aware of and driving the litigation. 

The fourth Larson factor, “the degree of support received by the plaintiff from other 

shareholders,” weighs decidedly against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. “Courts may also 

consider a potential representative’s outside entanglements making it likely that the interests of the 

other stockholders will be disregarded in the management of the suit.” RePET, Inc., 2016 WL 

11518482, at *5. Here, given Kenneth’s extensive alleged entanglements in the scheme, where he 

sat on both boards, approved the agreement twice, and received the alleged illegal funds, 

shareholders’ interests would likely be disregarded in the management of this suit under Kenneth 

and the entity plaintiffs. Thus, support from other shareholders would be minimal at best, but 

likely non-existent given Kenneth’s participation in approving the alleged scheme. 

Kenneth’s citation to Natomas Garden Investment Grp. LLC v. Sinadinos, No. CIV. S-08-

2308 FCD/KJM, 2009 WL 1363382 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2009), for the proposition that he does not 

need approval from other shareholders, does not persuade. There, the plaintiffs were “the only 

shareholders who allegedly did not benefit from defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct, [and thus 

were] not only uniquely situated to bring their derivative claim, but [were] also the only 

shareholders willing to seek relief on behalf of the allegedly harmed companies.” Id. at 16. Here, 

per the allegations of the complaint, Kenneth was involved in the scheme and did, in fact, benefit 

from the scheme. Thus, the fourth Larson factor weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. 

The fifth Larson factor too, “lack of any personal commitment to the action on the part of 

the representative plaintiff,” weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. The second 

amended complaint and requested relief, confirm that Kenneth has personal commitment to the 

action, especially where he is seeking to declaratory relief that he is not liable for any part of the 

scheme, and reinstatement back on to the respective boards of Yeung family owned subsidiaries. 

See Bass v. First Pacific Networks, Inc., No. C 92-20763, 1993 WL 484715, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

30, 1993) (dismissing action where shareholder sought relief “clearly designed” to favorably 

impact his own interests and his own suit). 

Kenneth’s reliance on Baytree Capital Associates, LLC v. Quan, No. CV 08-2822 CAS 

(AJWx), 2008 WL 4447647 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008) for the proposition that mere acceptance of 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 14 of 18
15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

a benefit does not prohibit him or his entities from serving as a representative under Rule 23.1 

does not persuade. In Baytree Capital, while the entity plaintiff benefitted from the purported 

wrong doing, it had no involvement whatsoever in the underlying scheme. 2008 WL 4447647, at 

*13-14 (“Plaintiff acknowledges that it received earn out shares, but argues that it has not 

participated in any of the alleged wrongdoing. . . . The fact that plaintiff received earn out shares 

does not make it a participant in the alleged wrongdoing; the wrongdoing alleged is the scheme 

that led to the issuance of the earn out shares the . . . defendants do not argue that plaintiff 

participated in that scheme.”). Kenneth’s arguments that he was not involved in the scheme are 

directly contradicted by the allegations in the second amended complaint that he approved the 

agreement underlying the purported scheme in his capacity as a director for Mt. Oscar and Yeung 

Holding. Thus, the fifth Larson factor weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. 

The sixth Larson factor, “the remedy sought by plaintiff in the derivative action,” further 

weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. Kenneth’s requested relief makes clear that he 

seeks to hold every other director on the Mt. Oscar and Yeung Holding boards but himself to 

treble damages, seeks reinstatement as a director, and further seeks, in his individual claim, 

declaratory relief that he committed no wrongdoing in any relation whatsoever with the scheme. 

(Dkt. No. 40 at ¶¶`115-121.) Although Kenneth avers that the remedy sought is narrowly tailored, 

such a conflict in the discrepancy between the relief requested as to himself and as to other 

directors demonstrates that he is an inadequate individual to maintain a shareholder derivative 

action under Rule 23.1. This is especially so where the clear allegations of the second amended 

complaint include that Kenneth sat on the board at the relevant time and twice approved the 

agreement underlying the purported scheme. Thus, the sixth Larson factor weighs against 

Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. 

The seventh Larson factor, “the relative magnitude of plaintiff’s personal interests as 

compared to his interest in the derivative action itself,” is against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. 

Kenneth is not free from economic interests that are antagonistic to the class, especially where he 

himself was involved in the purported scheme. Moreover, as noted, the allegations include 

Kenneth’s wrongful removal from the Yeung family owned boards and the requested relief 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 15 of 18
16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

includes Kenneth’s reinstatement on the boards from the entities from which he was removed. 

Weighing Kenneth’s personal interests as compared to the interest of the derivative action itself, 

the Court finds that Kenneth’s personal interests far exceed Kenneth’s interest in the derivative 

action itself. See Zarowitz v. BankAmerica Corp., 866 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir.1989) (individual 

with litigation against the corporation lacked standing to sue as a representative plaintiff in a 

separate derivative action where his interest in increasing the value of his corporate stock through 

larger derivative suit recovery was dwarfed by his interest in wrongful termination and defamation 

actions against the corporation). Thus, the seventh Larson factor weighs against Kenneth and the 

entity plaintiffs. 

Finally, the eighth Larson factor, “plaintiff’s vindictiveness toward the defendants,” 

weighs against Kenneth and the entity plaintiffs. “The reason [courts] consider vindictiveness as a 

factor in evaluating adequacy of representation is to render ineligible individuals who possess 

animus that would preclude the possibility of a suitable settlement.” Kayes, 51 F.3d at 1464. In 

certain circumstances, the filing of multiple lawsuits can demonstrate vindictiveness and lead to 

disqualification of an individual as a representative under Rule 23.1. See Hornreich v. Plant 

Indus., Inc., 535 F.2d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 1976) (affirming disqualification of plaintiff where 

plaintiff engaged in multiple pending actions against defendant corporation and threatened 

litigation as leverage for his other claims). See also Aztec Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Fisher, 152 F. 

Supp. 3d. 832, 858 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (“Moreover, the fact that [individuals] are Defendants in the 

main action and simultaneously the Plaintiffs in the subsequently filed derivative action clearly 

raises more than a specter that the derivative action was filed in retaliation and vindication of, and 

in direct conflict with, the claims that have been asserted against them in the main action, and as a 

weapon against or leverage in defending against that main action.”). In other circumstances, the 

filing of multiple suits can indicate no apparent vindictiveness. Kayes, 51 F.3d at 1464 (“[Prior 

lawsuit] shows no more vindictiveness towards Defendants than does the case at bar, but rather 

indicates a desire to enforce the same rights.”). 

 On balance, the Court finds that the numerous lawsuits filed in Hong Kong, China by 

Kenneth against the defendants suggests that this lawsuit was filed in a vindictive manner. 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 16 of 18
17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Although Kenneth avers that he is vindicating the same rights in this case that he attempted to 

vindicate in prior cases, this is notably the first lawsuit where Kenneth has sought the 

reimbursement of alleged misuse of funds to Yeung Holdings and Estates. Many of prior lawsuits 

concerned his removal as a director from the board of various Yeung family owned organizations 

and sought reinstatement to the relevant boards in many of those lawsuits. It would be a closer 

question as to the nature of whether this lawsuit is vindictive if all the prior lawsuits were 

exclusively about corporate control about Yeung Holding or Mt. Oscar. However, Kenneth has 

also sued defendants for defamation based on his alleged harassment that occurred during board 

meetings. Given the diversity of the subject of the lawsuits and the sheer number of lawsuits 

recently filed by Kenneth, there is a substantial concern that this lawsuit was vindictively filed. 

Accordingly, in light of the above analysis, the Court finds that Kenneth and the entity 

plaintiffs are inadequate representatives under Rule 23.1. Thus, the Court GRANTS Yeung 

Holding’s and Mt. Oscar’s motions to dismiss. As the Court has dismissed the derivative claims 

on the basis that plaintiffs are inadequate representatives under Rule 23.1, which the derivative 

claims contained the RICO claims, the Court is now left without subject-matter jurisdiction. 

However, in light of the gravity of the allegations in the second amended complaint, the Court 

GRANTS leave to amend to allow plaintiffs an opportunity to substitute other appropriate 

representative individuals or entities unaffiliated or owned by Kenneth in place of Kenneth and the 

entity plaintiffs. To the extent that an appropriate representative plaintiff is substituted into this 

matter, the third amended complaint shall be filed no later than February 21, 2020. Failure to do 

so will result in a sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of this matter for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction effective February 24, 2020. Additionally, in light of the Court’s holding that the 

derivative claims should be dismissed because plaintiff entities and Kenneth are inappropriate 

representative under Rule 23.1, the supplemental jurisdiction issue is now mooted. Thus, the 

Court DENIES AS MOOT the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss Kenneth’s individual claim 

7 and to strike claims for relief seeking Kenneth’s reinstatement.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Yeung Holding’s and Mt. Oscar’s motion to 

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 17 of 18
18 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

dismiss the second amended complaint and DENIES AS MOOT individual defendants’ motion to 

dismiss plaintiff Kenneth’s individual claim 7 and to strike claims for relief seeking plaintiff 

Kenneth’s reinstatement. A third amended complaint shall be filed no later than February 21, 

2020, substituting in an appropriate representative individual or entity. Failure to do so will result 

in a sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 

effective February 24, 2020. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 42, 45, 55. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2020 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-07644-YGR Document 65 Filed 01/24/20 Page 18 of 18