Kaplan v. Wyatt

4 Citing briefs

  1. Warren Rubin et al v. Shlomo Margalit et al --- (In re MRV Communications, Inc. Derivative Litigation)

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Settlement Approval Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement 280

    Filed March 28, 2013

    As to the 20 fifth factor, courts routinely hold that a two-person committee is sufficient and, 21 indeed, have even endorsed one-person committees. See, e.g., Kaplan, 484 A.2d at 22 512. 23 Moreover, the MRV SLC has no "structural bias" that would taint its 24 investigation or conclusions.

  2. Lr Trust v. Rogers et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed May 1, 2017

    Indeed, as Plaintiff’s own authorities make clear, in this context, discovery is “intended more as an aid to the Court than it is as a preparation tool for the parties,” and “is not afforded to the plaintiff as a matter of right but only to such extent as the Court deems necessary.” Kaplan v. Wyatt, 484 A.2d 501, 510 (Del. Ch. 1984), aff’d by 499 A.2d 1184 (Del. 1985). The Court has the benefit of the robust DRC Report and, because the issues are sufficiently clear-cut, Plaintiff’s request should be denied.

  3. Middlesex County Retirement System et al v. Semtech Corp. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Requested in the Subpoena Issued

    Filed February 1, 2010

    Case 2:07-cv-07114-CAS-FMO Document 162 Filed 02/01/10 Page 28 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -22- findings and recommendations” in order to sustain its burden of proving the independence and good faith of the special litigation committee, as well as the reasonableness of its investigation. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 788 (Del. 1981);24 see also Abercrombie, 2008 WL 1844357, at *3 (citing Perrigo, 128 F.3d at 441, for the proposition that “disclosure of the report . . . is essentially involuntary, at least in the sense that once the corporation chooses to take advantage of the statutory procedure and move to dismiss the derivative case, it must . . . disclose it to the derivative plaintiffs”); Kaplan v. Wyatt, 484 A.2d 501, 506 (Del. 1984) (citing Zapata, 430 A.2d 779) (holding that a corporation’s motion to terminate derivative litigation “must be supported by a thorough written record,” which describes the special litigation committee’s investigation, findings, and recommendation) (emphasis added). In the Ninth Circuit, such compelled production is thus not a waiver.

  4. Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. v. Bear Stearns Asset Management et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: [53] FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint., [44] MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaints., [49] MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaints., [56] MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Class Action and Verified Derivative Complaint.. Document

    Filed December 3, 2008

    ....................................... 30 Herman v. Feinsmith, 39 A.D.3d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) ..................................................................................... 29 In re IAC/InterActiveCorp Sec. Litig., 478 F. Supp. 2d 574 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ................................................................................ 17, 27 In re infoUSA, Inc. S’holders Litig., 953 A.2d 963 (Del. Ch. 2007) .................................................................................................. 21 Ishimaru v. Fung, No. 929, 2005 WL 2899680 (Del. Ch. Oct. 26, 2005) ............................................................. 18 JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ................................................................................ 41, 42 Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs. Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991).............................................................................................................. 17, 26 Kapan v. Wyatt, 484 A.2d 501 (Del. Ch. 1984) .................................................................................................. 26 Katell v. Morgan Stanley Group Inc., No. 12343, 1993 WL 10871 (Del. Ch. Jan. 14, 1993).............................................................. 19 Kolbeck v. LIT America, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 240 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ........................................................................................... 42 Lehman Bros. Commercial Corp. v. Minmetals Int’l Non-Ferrous Metals Trading Co., 179 F. Supp. 2d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................................................................ 28, 29 In re LNR Property Corp. S’holders Litig., 896 A.2d 169 (Del. Ch. 2005) .................................................................................................. 31 Malkinzon v. Kordonsky, 2008 WL 5006431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. Nov. 28, 2008) ................................................. 29 Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075 (Del. 2001) ..........