Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim was not derivative because it did not derive from duty or obligation owed to corporation
• concluding that the complaint failed to allege why the defendant’s conduct was “unjustified”
• holding that \[a]n attorney who represents a corporation is `not in privity with and therefore owes no separate duty of diligence and care to an individual shareholder absent special circumstances or an agreement to also represent the shareholder individually.'\
• holding a party’s agent cannot tortiously interfere because “the interfering defendant must be a third party, a stranger to the business relationship”
• holding a party’s agent cannot tortiously interfere because “the interfering defendant must be a third party, a stranger to the business relationship”
• finding that claims predicated on misrepresentations surrounding initial public offering were properly brought as direct actions, as cause of action flowed from injury to shareholders rather than corporation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).