Court Opinion

ID: 9813548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:09:26.581125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:37.300093
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in Judge Moore’s careful and thoughtful opinion, with the exception of part II.C.2.
In this case, it appears clear that “adequacy of representation” by one shareholder of an absent shareholder’s interest is not enough to make the absent shareholder “unnecessary” for purposes of Rule 19(a). “Adequacy of representation” therefore becomes relevant in the context of this case only at the Rule 19(b) stage. I am reluctant to conclude, however, that “adequacy of representation” is categorically not to be considered as part of a Rule 19(a) analysis, and such a conclusion is unnecessary to our holding.