Ryan v. Gifford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that demand is excused when a complaint alleges that a majority of the board knowingly approved backdated options
• holding that acquisition of stock by way of merger agreement was “not by operation of law”
• holding that demand was excused because the board lacked discretion to “contravene the terms of” stockholder-approved stock option plans
• holding that a plaintiff lacked standing to challenge backdated options grants occurring before he acquired his shares even though similar backdated grants continued to be made after the plaintiff became a stockholder”
• holding that a plaintiff lacked standing to challenge backdated options grants occurring before he acquired his shares even though similar backdated grants continued to be made after the plaintiff became a stockholder”
• contemplating that the court could use “expert testimony to determine the true value of the [unauthorized] option grants or simply rescind them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).