In another shareholder derivative action, the defendant company requested the appointment of a special investigator to ascertain whether it was in the best interest of the company to continue the shareholder derivative action, on one hand, or whether it should be dismissed, on the other hand. The law firm represented the former lawyers of the company who were included in the shareholder derivative action under breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice theories. The special investigator ruled in favor of our firm’s clients, determining that the derivative was not in the companies’ best interest as to these defendants. The trial court found that the independent investigator acted in good faith and that his conclusions were reasonable. The Fourth District Court of Appeal sustained that ruling and, in a case of first impression in Florida, held that a Florida Court was not required to exercise its own business judgment when reviewing the propriety of an independent investigator’s recommendation, rather the Court only had to decide whether the investigator made his determination in good faith, after conducting a reasonable investigation. The Court did not have to apply its own independent business judgment in reviewing the report, although, the Court could do so, if it so desired.
In a complex shareholder’s derivative action, the plaintiff, representing minority shareholders, sued two individual non-resident defendants who were represented by the firm. The firm moved to dismiss the...
In an action in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the firm defended Paul and Eric Siler in an action brought against them by...