Recent rulings have carved out a victorious first round for civil plaintiffs in stock-options backdating cases after judges refused to dismiss four of their suits. At issue in most of the cases was whether plaintiff shareholders should have demanded books and records from the companies' boards of directors before filing their lawsuits. Some of the plaintiffs successfully pleaded "demand futility" by showing that directors were not objective or that their acts were not of sound "business judgment."
March 29, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Recent rulings have carved out a victorious first round for plaintiffs in civil litigation over stock-options backdating after judges refused to dismiss four of their suits.
At issue in most of the cases was whether plaintiffs, as shareholders, should have demanded books and records from the companies’ boards of directors before filing their lawsuits.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
