Guttman v. Huang

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where a complaint fails to provide any facts indicating that the directors had a basis to believe the company’s financial statements were misleading, evidence that two of them sold a large portion of their stock does not support a conclusion that they are liable
• finding that complaint lacked factual allegations critical to a Caremark claim, such as lack of board committees, committees’ failure to meet regularly and committees’ failure to devote adequate time to their work
• \the complaint fails to address whether the directors traded because options were expiring or because IPO-related restrictions on liquidity had recently ended.\
• “Mere notice pleading is insufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ burden to show demand excusal in a derivative case.”
• \A Caremark claim is a difficult one to prove.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).