Delaware Judge Dismisses Derivative Lawsuit for Plaintiffs Being Too Hasty

Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!

updated Aug 29, 2014

By Author - LawCrossing

09/27/12

Judge Travis Laster Dismisses Derivative Lawsuit for Plaintiffs
On Tuesday, Judge Travis Laster on Delaware's Court of Chancery, effectively put the plaintiff's bar on notice by dismissing a derivative lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs were too hasty, and with the caveat that more diligent plaintiffs could revive the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed a few weeks after the Hecla Mining Co had three fatal mining accidents this year and announced the closing of its Lucky Friday silver mine in Idaho. Two shareholders Steven and Linda South and their law firm, Levi & Korsinsky immediately filed a derivative lawsuit and had Judge Laster dismiss the same on grounds of hasty action. Laster took the plaintiffs to task over them not even bothering to demand the company's books and records, and spending little time on the complaint.

Laster, who has been quite often critical of the plaintiff's bar said, “Rather than acting in the best interests of the
corporation, the Souths filed hastily because doing so served the interests of their attorneys.”

United States
In his 41-page opinion, Laster also commented sarcastically that without books and records to tie the board to the mining accidents, the plaintiffs are acting on the premise that three accidents a year automatically equates to director bad faith.

Laster wrote, “It's the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, and for fans of Schoolhouse Rock, it will always be a magic number … But three mining accidents in a year does not support a reasonable inference of board involvement, much less bad faith, conscious wrongdoing, or knowing indifference on the part of a board of directors, particularly where the incidents appear unrelated."

However, the judge also mentioned that the dismissal of the present matter would not prevent another shareholder from bringing a new complaint after carrying out an investigation in the proper manner with regard to the mining accidents.

The case is Steven South and Linda South v. Philips S. Baker Jr, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 7294.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!

( 4 votes, average: 3.9 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related