Misplaced Pages

Zapata Corp v. Maldonado

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Zapata Corp v. Maldonado
CourtDelaware Supreme Court
Citation430 A 2d 779 (Del Sup 1979)
Keywords
Derivative action

Zapata Corp v. Maldonado 430 A 2d 779 (Del Sup 1979) is a US corporate law case, concerning the derivative suits in Delaware.

Facts

There was suspicion about whether a special litigation committee appointed by the board, which then dismissed the validity of a claim, was independent. The Zapata Corp was founded by George H. W. Bush.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2015)

Judgment

The Delaware Supreme Court held that a "special litigation committee" would not automatically be regarded as independent. However in this case the board could not be sued for breach of fiduciary duty, and on the facts the committee was competent to reject the demand for a derivative suit, despite being appointed by the board.

Where a derivative suit cannot be brought without prior demand upon the directors followed by refusal, the directors' decision will stand absent a demonstration of self-interest or bad faith; but where such a demand is excused (for reasons of futility, etc.) and a derivative action is properly brought, an independent committee of directors may obtain a dismissal only if the trial court finds both (a) that the committee was independent, acted in good faith and made a reasonable investigation; and (b) that in the court's independent business judgment as to the corporation's best interest, the action should be dismissed.

Reactions

Senator Joseph Biden was assumed to have reacted positively to the news, due to his past support for financial regulations bills.

See also

Sources on derivative suits
Davenport v. Dows, 85 US 626 (1873)
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 US 186 (1977)
Delaware General Corporation Law ยง141(a)
Delaware Chancery Court Rules, Rule 23.1
Zapata Corp v. Maldonado, 430 A2d 779 (Del Sup 1981)
Joy v. North, 692 F2d 880 (1982)
Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A2d 805 (Del 1984)
In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation, 824 A2d 917 (2003)
Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 SE2d 551 (1983)
See US corporate law and derivative suits

Notes

  1. "Intermediate Scrutiny for Corporate Political Contributions". www.ir.law.fsu.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-29.

References

Category: