Skip to main content

Oliveira v. Sugarman

Citations

  • 152 A.3d 728
  • 451 Md. 208

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that a stock dilution claim can “support a direct shareholder claim under some circumstances”
  • finding that demand investigation was reasonable where committee “hired highly respected and experienced legal counsel to assist”
  • holding a shareholder Proxy Statement which said the “awards we have granted will vest only if performance conditions are achieved . . . and if additional service-based vesting periods . . . are satisfied” constituted a clear and definite promise
  • “It is considered a ‘fundamental rule’ that ‘[a] shareholder—even the sole shareholder—does not have standing to assert claims alleging wrongs to the corporation’”
  • “Because a derivative lawsuit intrudes upon the board of directors’ managerial control of the corporation, shareholders are required to first make a demand that the board take action before initiating a derivative suit”
  • We adopt the definition [of SLCs] set forth in Boland|.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barbera, Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Oliveira v. Sugarman

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.