Woods v. Jacey Management Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “According to Plaintiffs, Sprint knew, or should have known, its tax strategy was illegal by 2009.”
• granting motion to dismiss because plaintiff was “unable to identify particularized facts of Defendants’ knowledge or conduct, actual or constructive, evidencing a breach of fiduciary duties”
• granting motion to dismiss because plaintiff was “unable to identify particularized facts of Defendants’ knowledge or conduct, actual or constructive, evidencing a breach of fiduciary duties”
• “Plaintiffs assert the Aronson test is inapplicable because Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to prohibit Sprint from implementing the allegedly illegal tax strategy.”
• court noting that “Plaintiffs claim the Directors breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to take its allegedly illegal tax approach under New York law to unbundling certain voice services from the flat rate access charge for wireless calling plans.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).