In Re American International Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiff had failed to plead demand futility with respect to waste claim where the complaint contained no “particularized facts indicating that the Board consciously acted in bad faith when deciding ... to repurchase shares”
• finding general allegations about trouble in financial markets insufficient to put defendants on alert of company’s own exposure to loss
• finding that plaintiff had failed to plead demand futility with respect to waste claim where the complaint contained no \particularized facts indicating that the Board consciously acted in bad faith when deciding . . . to repurchase shares\
• applying Delaware law and finding that “the actions in question occurred before Liddy, Johnson and Dammerman joined the Board and, accordingly, there are no grounds to create a reason to doubt their disinterestedness with respect to these claims.”
• directors did not face substantial likelihood of liability where it was “inconsistent to the scale and scope” of company for directors to be aware of particular issue
• “The existence of reasonable doubt must be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis and not by any rote and inelastic criteria.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).