Source: https://www.klgatesdelawaredocket.com/tag/derivative-suit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:03:14+00:00

Document:
In Salberg v. Genworth Financial, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0018-JRS (Del. Ch. July 27, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the demand by the plaintiff stockholders (the “Stockholders”) for books and records from defendant Genworth Financial, Inc. (“Genworth”) under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Genworth asserted the attorney-client privilege and the Stockholders sought to invoke the “celebrated” Garner fiduciary exception. While the § 220 demand was made in the context of a pending merger, influential to the ruling was the fact that the requested books and records were relevant to a separate derivative action among the same parties. Although most of the Garner “good cause” factors weighed in favor of an exception to the privilege, the court held that the unique facts and circumstances surrounding the Stockholders’ demand barred them from accessing privileged information that was shielded from discovery in the derivative suit.
In Francis M. Ford (VMware Inc.) v. VMware Inc. C.A. No. 11714-VCL (Del. Ch. May 2, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in full for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Francis M. Ford (“Plaintiff”) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against VMware Inc. (“VMware”), EMC Corp. (“EMC”), Denali Holding Co. (“Denali”), Dell Inc. (“Dell”), Universal Acquisition Co. (“Universal”), and several directors of these companies. Plaintiff was a minority stockholder of VMware prior to a merger between EMC, VMware’s controlling stockholder, and Denali that closed in September 2016. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that the parties to the merger breached any fiduciary duties to the VMware stockholders or that the parties otherwise bound VMware to unfair terms. The Court also found that the restructuring of VMware prior to the merger was subject to the business judgment rule, and that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that Denali’s issuance of a tracking stock reflecting the performance of VMware’s stock price was a misappropriation or a wrongful dilution.
In In re Qualcomm Inc. FCPA Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 11152-VCMR (Del. Ch. June 16, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss brought by defendants for failure to state a claim and for failure to make demand or to allege demand futility with sufficient facts, dismissing the plaintiff-stockholders’ derivative action on Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 grounds. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to support the inference that the board acted in bad faith pursuant to a Caremark claim for breach of fiduciary duties and found that the plaintiffs’ proffered documentary evidence suggested that the defendant-directors had yielded to—rather than charged after—red flags raised about the Qualcomm’s compliance with federal anti-bribery laws.
In In re Massey Energy Company Derivative And Class Action Litigation, C.A. No. 5430-CB (Del. Ch. May 4, 2017), the Chancery Court dismissed both the direct class action claim for “inseparable fraud” and the derivative claim brought by the former shareholders of Massey Energy (“Massey” or the “Corporation”) against the former directors and officers of Massey for breaching their fiduciary duties by causing Massey to operate in willful disregard of safety regulations. The court dismissed the derivative claim holding that the plaintiffs were not continuous shareholders, and therefore lacked standing to bring a derivative claim after Massey merged into Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (Alpha) in June of 2011. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ direct claim for “inseparable fraud” claim holding that, though pled as a direct claim, it was, in fact, also a derivative claim that the plaintiffs’ lacked the standing to maintain.
In Dietrichson v. Knott, C.A. No. 11965-VCMR (Del. Ch. Apr. 19, 2017), the Chancery Court dismissed the entire complaint brought by one member of a limited liability company against another member for paying himself an unauthorized salary and misappropriating the proceeds of a sale of the company’s assets, concluding that the claims made were derivative rather than direct stockholder claims. The Court also held that plaintiff’s claims were not “dual-natured” (i.e., having both direct and derivative aspects), because the plaintiff failed to plead that the transaction resulted in both an improper transfer of economic value and voting power from the minority equity holders to the controlling equity holder.
In Obeid v. Hogan, No. CV 11900-VCL (Del. Ch. June 10, 2016), the Delaware Court of Chancery prevented a former federal judge from serving as the sole member of parallel special litigation committees formed to assess derivative actions because he was not a director or manager of the respective limited liability companies (“LLCs”). In reaching this decision, the court followed corporate precedent in interpreting an LLC agreement because of the LLC’s “corporate-style governance structure.” The court concluded an LLC board of directors could therefore delegate authority to a committee to take control of a derivative action, under certain circumstances, but that authority could not be delegated to a non-director/non-member in this instance.
In Friedman v. Maffei, et al, C.A. No. 11105-VCMR (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 2016), the Court of Chancery dismissed derivative claims brought by Julie Friedman on behalf of TripAdvisor, Inc. (“TripAdvisor”) concerning the vesting of 200,000 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) of Expedia stock belonging to Dara Khosrowshahi, a former TripAdvisor director and current CEO of Expedia, Inc. (“Expedia”). In considering defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded that Friedman failed to plead particularized facts that raise a reasonable doubt that the TripAdvisor board (the “Board”) validly exercised its business judgment in refusing her demand. Because the plaintiff could not show the Board wrongfully refused her demand, the court granted the motion to dismiss.

References: v. 
 § 220
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.