November 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 331


November 25, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Court Finds Derivative Claims Involving Nevada Corporation Were Not "Validly In Litigation"

A shareholder bringing a derivative claim, faces a choice.  The shareholder can either make a demand on the board of directors and then challenge the board's decision not to proceed or file a complaint alleging that the demand would be futile.  NRCP 23.1 If the shareholder elects the latter, then the shareholder must plead facts showing "interestedness" on the part of the board.  Essentially, a plaintiff must allege that that the directors' interest(s) in the challenged act or litigation outcome vitiates the board's ability to consider a demand impartially.  Shoen v. SAC Holding Corp., 122 Nev. 621, 641 n. 62 (2006).  

In general, the relevant board for purposes of determining demand futility is the board in place at the time of filing of the operative complaint.  A plaintiff may problem if it files an amended complaint after a change in the board's constituents.  Delaware allows plaintiffs to plead demand futility based on the prior complaint if the derivative claims are "validly in litigation".  Braddock v. Zimmerman, 906 A.2d 776, 778-79 (Del. 2006).  Three conditions must be met for a claim to be "validly in litigation":

  • The original complaint was properly pled as a derivative action;

  • The original complaint satisfied the test for demand excusal; and

  • The act or transactions that are the subject of the amended complaint are essentially the same as those challenged in the original complaint.

Id. at 786.  

In a recent ruling in Barenbaum v. Palleshi, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180624, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found "no indication that Nevada would not follow the Braddock test".  However, she found that because the plaintiff's original complaint did not plead demand futility, the plaintiff's claims were not "validly in litigation" when he filed his amended complaint.  As a result, the plaintiff lacked standing to sue derivatively.

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume X, Number 293



About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm

Keith Bishop works with privately held and publicly traded companies on federal and state corporate and securities transactions, compliance, and governance matters. He is highly-regarded for his in-depth knowledge of the distinctive corporate and regulatory requirements faced by corporations in the state of California.

While many law firms have a great deal of expertise in federal or Delaware corporate law, Keith’s specific focus on California corporate and securities law is uncommon. A former California state regulator of securities and financial institutions, Keith has decades of...