Magistrate Judge: Investors Failed To Plead Demand Futility In Derivative Suit

Title	Views
1	Dodd-Frank Law Sets New Rules for Compensation Consultants, Counsel and Other Advisers	10730
2	How Far Can the Plaintiffs Really Go With the Cases Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies?	9465
3	D & J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4156 (5th Cir. February 26, 2010)	6355

Title

Views

Dodd-Frank Law Sets New Rules for Compensation Consultants, Counsel and Other Advisers

10730

How Far Can the Plaintiffs Really Go With the Cases Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies?

9465

D & J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4156 (5th Cir. February 26, 2010)

6355

Title	Downl.
1	The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority	24
2	The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority	9

Title

Downl.

The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority

PORTLAND, Ore. - Dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit is proper because the shareholders have failed to properly plead demand futility, a federal magistrate judge in Oregon recommended in a Jan.11 report and recommendation (Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund, et al. v. Raymond P. Davis, et al., No. 11-633, D. Ore.). Full story on lexis.com

Featured Content

You are not logged in. Please Login to add content to your community page

Visit Other Communities By

Latest Postings

Most Viewed Postings

Popular Downloads

Magistrate Judge: Investors Failed To Plead Demand Futility In Derivative Suit

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Securities Litigation Legal News