Court sustained objection to request for advancement of two categories of fees where plaintiff failed to seek advancement of those fees in her original complaint and could not raise them in a subsequent motion for payment.

Although plaintiffs' experts' report in support of their damages theory for class certification used sufficiently reliable methodologies under the Daubert standard, the evidence was wholly speculative to demonstrate economic loss or proximate causation, such that plaintiffs could not meet the commonality or predominance standards.

Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility due to the lack of directors' personal liability for oversight and corporate waste claims, as the failure to implement a formal policy governing executives' personal use of corporate aircraft did not, by itself, amount to bad faith, and any financial loss from personal use constituted a fraction of a percentage of the company's expenses and profits.

Buyers in corporate acquisition adequately pled fraud claims where acquisition agreement expressly stated that seller had not changed its accounting practices even though seller's owners expressly accelerated the collection of accounts receivable, which made attached financials inaccurate.

Court declined to grant summary judgment for defendants where the parties' joint expert persuasively opined that plaintiffs' complaint qualified as a protective action under relevant Ecuadoran law, making plaintiffs' claims not time-barred under the Delaware borrowing statute.

Court struck pleadings based on confidential corporate information where information was supplied by director nominated by stockholder although the stockholder did not have a contractual right to designate the director and the director did not serve as the stockholder's fiduciary on the board.