Kaplan v. Wyatt

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that an SLC member was independent despite business associations, which exceeded millions of dollars, between entities affiliated with the SLC member and the company where a defendant served as chairman and CEO
• rejecting attacks to a special litigation committee’s process based on the involvement of the nominal defendants’ counsel
• describing the analytical difficulties presented when plaintiffs “pull out all stops” and “throw every possible argument imaginable into the controversy, no matter how minor or picayune”
• rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge to an SLC’s good faith based on the purported animosity the SLC’s counsel had toward the plaintiff’s counsel and the failure to investigate key issues
• noting that this motion “is to be handled procedurally in a manner akin to proceedings on summary judgment” in that “[e]ach side . . . shall have an opportunity to make a record” and that the moving party “has the normal burden imposed on a moving party under a Rule 56 motion”
• “the motion is a hybrid one, derived by analogy to a motion to dismiss a derivative suit based upon a voluntary settlement [and a] unilateral [ ] ... voluntary dismissal.. ..”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Dreiling v. Jain
  Washington Supreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 157×
• In Re ORACLE CORP DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2003-06-17· cited 89×
• Kaplan v. Wyatt
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1985-10-09· cited 64×
• Houle v. Low
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1990-07-05· cited 63×
• Kahn v. Kolberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2011-06-20· cited 52×
• Lewis v. Fuqua
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1985-11-14· cited 49×
• In re Primedia, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2013-05-10· cited 48×
• Boland v. Boland
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2011-10-31· cited 38×
• Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-05-22· cited 36×
• Biondi v. Scrushy
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2003-01-16· cited 33×
• In Re Oracle Securities Litigation
  N.D. California· 1993-08-09· cited 32×
• Grimes v. DSC Communications Corp.
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1998-08-05· cited 32×
• Rosengarten v. Buckley
  D. Maryland· 1985-07-26· cited 23×
• Johnson v. Hui
  N.D. California· 1991-09-05· cited 19×
• Will v. Engebretson & Co.
  California Court of Appeal· 1989-08-31· cited 19×
• Sutherland v. Sutherland
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2008-05-05· cited 18×
• Strougo Ex Rel. the Brazil Fund, Inc. v. Padegs
  S.D. New York· 1998-11-18· cited 13×
• Grafman v. Century Broadcasting Corp.
  N.D. Illinois· 1991-03-28· cited 11×
• In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2002-07-10· cited 11×
• In Re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Derivative Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1990-11-08· cited 9×