Shareholders planning to file a derivative suit on behalf of a corporation in Texas had better be sure their presuit demand letter meets the requirements the state Supreme Court set out in a May 22 opinion.
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court rejected a two-sentence demand letter that a Texas corporation’s board of directors received three days before a shareholder filed a derivative suit to halt a pending merger. The 8-0 decision in In Re: Harold R. Schmitz, et al. spells out that a demand letter must name the shareholder making the demand and state the claim with particularity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]