§Why CasetextPricing

Notice Entry of Order

undefined

26 Cited authorities

  1. Seinfeld v. Verizon Communications

    909 A.2d 117 (Del. 2006)   Cited 129 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff in an action under 8 Del. C. § 220 need only allege a "'credible basis' from which a court can infer that mismanagement, waste or wrongdoing may have occurred" (internal ref's omitted)

  2. VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    763 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 85 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Delaware law, " defendant need not provide an accounting of the costs a plaintiff should have avoided, but the burden is properly on a defendant to articulate the actions that would have been reasonable under the circumstances to mitigate loss"

  3. Casterson v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 102 times
    In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.

  4. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 80 times
    Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

  5. Tiger v. Boast Apparel, Inc.

    214 A.3d 933 (Del. 2019)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that though there is no "presumption of confidentiality," "the Court of Chancery may-and typically does-condition Section 220 inspections on the entry of a reasonable confidentiality order" where appropriate

  6. King v. Verifone Holdings, Inc.

    12 A.3d 1140 (Del. 2011)   Cited 56 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prior filing of a derivative action does not preclude a shareholder from pursuing a later Section 220 books and records request

  7. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  8. Pettry v. Gilead Scis., Inc.

    C.A. No. 2020-0132-KSJM (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 2020)   Cited 22 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Gilead, the alleged wrongdoing "appear[ed] vast" based on evidence of multiple ongoing government investigations, a pending government lawsuit, and hundreds of civil actions, including one brought on behalf of more than 15,000 plaintiffs.

  9. Focus Fin. Partners, LLC v. Holsopple

    250 A.3d 939 (Del. Ch. 2020)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing implications of first-filed action for forum non conveniens analysis

  10. Stern v. South Chester Tube Co.

    390 U.S. 606 (1968)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that federal court could exercise diversity jurisdiction over stockholder's claim to inspect books and records

  11. Section 220 - Inspection of books and records

    Del. Code tit. 8 § 220   Cited 712 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Defining subsidiary as “any entity directly or indirectly owned, in whole or in part, by the corporation of which the stockholder is a stockholder and over the affairs of which the corporation directly or indirectly exercises control, and includes, without limitation , corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, statutory trusts and/or joint ventures”