Di Cosola v. Di Cosola

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs had pleaded a Caremark claim based on allegations that the board approved an illegal business plan and the company “pled guilty to criminal misdemeanor [and] . . . paid criminal fines of $375 million”
• noting that original judgment could still serve as persuasive authority to second court and could bind original plaintiff through stare decisis
• noting that “[t]he appearance of formal compliance cloaked the reality of non-compliance” when “directors who understood the difference between legal off-label sales and illegal off-label marketing continued to approve and oversee business plans that depended on illegal activity”
• noting that “[t]he appearance of formal compliance cloaked the reality of non-compliance” when “directors who understood the difference between legal off- label sales and illegal off-label marketing continued to approve and oversee business plans that depended on illegal activity”
• discussing board approval of business plan with targets that only could be achieved through company promotion of off-label uses
• finding it was reasonable to infer directors approved a business plan allowing for illegal off-label marketing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).