Conrad v. Blank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge stock option grants predating her ownership of the corporation’s stock
• holding that allegations that directors approved backdated options in violation of restriction in plan supported inference that directors “acted knowingly” and breached their duty of loyalty by engaging in intentional wrongdoing
• stating that 'the court [was] not persuaded that it should ignore the plaintiff's study'
• applying Rales where the challenged transaction “was not made by the board, or even half of its members”
• denying Rule 23.1 motion and permitting derivative claims to proceed despite plaintiffs' apparent failure to use Section 220 where a majority of the directors either received the challenged options themselves or made the decisions to grant the options
• “Since the challenged transaction was not made by the board, or even half of its members, the test articulated in Rales is the proper standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).