In Re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litig.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that the complaint must indicate “when plaintiffs bought stock” in the company
• stating a complaint must 27 identify “which individual defendant or defendants were responsible for which alleged wrongful 1 act.”
• “[B]are allegations of stock sales are insufficient, because the trading of stock is not in itself improper under Delaware law.”
• “If [allegations that directors were employees] were sufficient to show lack of independence, every inside director would be disabled from considering a pre-suit demand.”
• “A derivative plaintiff has no. standing to sue, for misconduct that occurred prior to the time he became , a .shareholder of the corporation.”
• “[T]he complaint fails to state a claim because 9 plaintiffs do not indicate which individual defendant or defendants were responsible for which 10 alleged wrongful act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).