Lundeen v. Schuele

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff must allege that “the board consciously failed to act after learning about evidence of illegality”
• holding that plaintiff must allege that “the board consciously failed to act after learning about evidence of illegality”
• noting that the derivative claims’ Caremark claim functioned as “a tag-along indemnification action grounded primarily on still-developing harms from the Lucky Friday closure and the far-from- resolved federal securities actions”
• explaining that a plaintiff who cannot plead actual director involvement in “decisions that violated positive law” can “plead that the board consciously failed to act after learning about evidence of illegality—the proverbial ‘red flag’”
• reviewing a board’s alleged “knowledge of wrong-doing or conscious indifference to alleged red flags” under Caremark
• finding “existence and mandate” of company’s internal safety committee was “inconsistent” with plaintiff’s assertion that board “failed . . . to fulfill their oversight obligations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).