Ernesto Espinoza v. Mark Zuckerberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a duplicative unjust enrichment claim logically survived summary judgment when its underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty survived
• holding that a ratification by written consent is not “effective unless it complies with the technical requirements of Section 228”
• noting that a “rare” set of facts will create a reasonable inference of waste
• explaining that purported ratification of corporate acts taken by written consent under 8 Del. C. § 228 are not effective unless it complies with the technical requirements of 8 Del. C. § 228
• referring to the form of “ratification” explained in Frank, 32 A.2d 277
• “Although minority stockholders have no power to alter a controlling stockholder’s binding decisions absent a fiduciary breach, they are entitled to the benefits of the formalities imposed by the DGCL[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).