Supreme Court of Delaware

Judgment dismissing plaintiff's third amended complaint upon finding his lack of standing to pursue derivative claims following a third-party merger in which all of his stocks in a corporation-defendant was cashed out is affirmed where plaintiff's attempt to recast a derivative claim as a direct claim by means of a "bootstrap argument" were unavailing to maintain standing against the weight of case precedents.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/30/2008
• Published 06/02/2008

Judges

• HOLLAND, Justice:, Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire, Timothy R. Dudderar, Esquire (argued) and Berton W. Ashman, Jr., Esquire, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Stephen E. Jenkins, Esquire (argued), Richard L. Renck, Esquire and Andrew D. Cordo, Esquire, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE, for appellees, Rory J. Cutaia, Jonathan Lawrence and J. Todd Raymond., Vernon R. Proctor, Esquire, Proctor & Heyman, LLP, Wilmington, DE, for appellees, Steven J. Kumble, James T. Raymond, Llewellyn Werner, William Hitchcock, and Leonard V. Sessa.