7 Cited authorities

Rombach v. Chang
355 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 1,450 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that complaint may establish scienter through facts showing that defendants "had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud"
In re Bank of New York Derivative
320 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 127 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and New York Business Corporation Law § 626(b), which mirrors Delaware Corporate Law § 327, "a plaintiff must have owned stock in the corporation throughout the course of the activities that constitute the primary basis of the complaint" and "a proper plaintiff must have acquired his or her stock in the corporation before the core of the allegedly wrongful conduct transpired"
In re Facebook, Inc. Initial Pub. Offering Derivative Litig.
797 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2015) Cited 73 times
Holding that failure to satisfy contemporaneous ownership requirement does not raise jurisdictional issue under Article III, but, rather, means that plaintiff does not have standing to represent nominal defendant's interests in derivative capacity
Conrad v. Blank
940 A.2d 28 (Del. Ch. 2007) Cited 48 times
Holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge stock option grants predating her ownership of the corporation's stock
Heller v. Kiernan
C.A. No. 1484-K (Del. Ch. Feb. 27, 2002) Cited 38 times
C.A. No. 1484-K Submitted: January 29, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Steven Schwartz, Esquire, SCHWARTZ SCHWARTZ, Dover, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff. Stephen P. Ellis, Esquire, SERGOVIC, ELLIS SHIREY, P.A., Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMB, Vice Chancellor. I. This post-trial opinion considers the parameters of the relationship that exists, in the absence of any written or express oral contract, between a real estate brokerage company and its principals
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 100,772 times 689 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 626 - Shareholders' derivative action brought in the right of the corporation to procure a judgment in its favor
N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 626 Cited 505 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that a plaintiff must be “a holder at the time of bringing the action and that he was such a holder at the time of the transaction of which he complains”

Nottenkamper v. Modany et al

7 Cited authorities

Rombach v. Chang

Holding that complaint may establish scienter through facts showing that defendants "had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud"

In re Bank of New York Derivative

In re Facebook, Inc. Initial Pub. Offering Derivative Litig.

Holding that failure to satisfy contemporaneous ownership requirement does not raise jurisdictional issue under Article III, but, rather, means that plaintiff does not have standing to represent nominal defendant's interests in derivative capacity

Conrad v. Blank

Holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge stock option grants predating her ownership of the corporation's stock

Heller v. Kiernan

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Section 626 - Shareholders' derivative action brought in the right of the corporation to procure a judgment in its favor

Stating that a plaintiff must be “a holder at the time of bringing the action and that he was such a holder at the time of the transaction of which he complains”