CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYS. v. DIMON, 135 A.D.3d 566 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160119290
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2016
Summary: The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility based on defendants' lack of disinterest or breach of the duty of loyalty ( see Rales v Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 , 936 [Del 1993]). The complaint fails to allege particularized facts showing the substantial likelihood of defendants' personal liability as a result of any intentional misconduct, that they consciously failed to implement any sort of risk monitoring system or that, having implemented such
Summary: The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility based on defendants' lack of disinterest or breach of the duty of loyalty ( see Rales v Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 , 936 [Del 1993]). The complaint fails to allege particularized facts showing the substantial likelihood of defendants' personal liability as a result of any intentional misconduct, that they consciously failed to implement any sort of risk monitoring system or that, having implemented such ..
More
The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility based on defendants' lack of disinterest or breach of the duty of loyalty (see Rales v Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 936 [Del 1993]). The complaint fails to allege particularized facts showing the substantial likelihood of defendants' personal liability as a result of any intentional misconduct, that they consciously failed to implement any sort of risk monitoring system or that, having implemented such a system, they consciously disregarded red flags (see e.g. Security Police & Fire Professionals of Am. Retirement Fund v Mack, 93 A.D.3d 562 [1st Dept 2012]).
Source: Leagle
