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.
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.
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.
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) ..........