Also known as:derivative suit · derivative action · derivative actions · shareholder derivative suit · stockholder derivative suit
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An action commenced by a member or shareholder to enforce a right belonging to the entity rather than to the individual owner. The plaintiff must satisfy contemporaneous ownership and demand requirements before proceeding. Any recovery belongs to the entity.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
LLC Member Standing Challenge
Doris Duffy acquired her membership interest in Desert Oil after the managers diverted a corporate opportunity. She commenced a derivative action without first acquiring status at the time of the conduct. The court dismissed the suit because she failed the contemporaneous ownership requirement.
Limited Partnership Demand Issue
Dominic Drake sent a written demand to the general partner of Duarte Shipping requesting suit over a diverted contract. Eleven months passed with only vague assurances and no filing. He then filed a derivative action, and the court permitted it to proceed because the general partner had not acted within a reasonable time.
Destiny Davis prevailed in a derivative suit on behalf of Dakota Industries recovering diverted funds. The judgment directed payment directly to the LLC. Destiny received no personal share of the proceeds under the governing rule.
Partnership Proceeds Rule
Demetrius Douglas obtained a settlement in a derivative action for Dover Bank after the general partner misappropriated assets. The court ordered the entire settlement paid to the partnership. Demetrius immediately remitted any funds he received to the entity.
LLC Fee Award After Success
Devon Drake prevailed on a derivative claim for Desert Oil recovering misappropriated funds. The court awarded him reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the LLC recovery. The award compensated the effort without shifting the proceeds away from the company.
Federal Proxy Violation Suit
Delilah Duran brought a derivative action alleging misleading proxy materials caused a merger harming the corporation. The court recognized an implied private right of action under the securities statute. The suit proceeded on behalf of the entity to remedy the violation.
J. I. Case Co. v. Borak377 U.S. 426, 431-32 (1964)
Respondent owned 2,000 shares of common stock of J. I. Case Company acquired prior to the merger. He brought a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction. Respondent sought to enjoin a proposed merger between Case and the American Tractor Corporation on grounds including breach of the fiduciary duties of the Case directors, self-dealing among the management of Case and ATC, and misrepresentations contained in the material circulated to obtain proxies.
The complaint was in two counts. The first count was based on diversity and claimed a breach of the directors' fiduciary duty to the stockholders. The second count alleged a violation of § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with reference to the proxy solicitation material.
The injunction was denied and the merger was consummated. Successive amended complaints were filed. The case was heard on the two-count complaint.
The allegations included that petitioners solicited proxies for a special stockholders’ meeting at which the merger was to be voted upon. The proxy solicitation material was false and misleading in violation of § 14(a) and Rule 14a-9. The merger was approved by a small margin of votes and would not have been approved but for the false and misleading statements. Case stockholders were damaged thereby.
The District Court held that as to the federal count it had no power to redress the alleged violations of the Act but was limited solely to the granting of declaratory relief thereon under § 27 of the Act. The court held the Wisconsin security for expenses statute applicable to both counts except the declaratory portion of Count 2. It ordered respondent to furnish a bond in the amount of $75,000. Upon his failure to do so, the court dismissed the complaint save that part of Count 2 seeking a declaratory judgment.
On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals reversed on both counts. It held that the District Court had the power to grant remedial relief and that the Wisconsin statute was not applicable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether § 27 of the Act authorizes a federal cause of action for rescission or damages to a corporate stockholder with respect to a consummated merger authorized pursuant to a proxy statement alleged to contain false and misleading statements violative of § 14(a) of the Act.
Who may bring a derivative action on behalf of an LLC?
Only a person who is a member at the time the action is commenced and who was a member when the conduct occurred or acquired status by operation of law may maintain the suit.
Supporting sources
What happens to proceeds recovered in a derivative action?
Any proceeds or benefits belong to the limited liability company or limited partnership and not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must remit any received proceeds immediately to the entity.
Supporting sources
When may a court award fees to a successful derivative plaintiff?
If the action succeeds in whole or in part the court may award the plaintiff reasonable expenses including attorneys fees and costs from the entity's recovery.
Supporting sources
Must a demand be made before filing a derivative suit in a limited partnership?
A partner must first make a demand on the general partners unless the demand would be futile. The general partners must then fail to bring the action within a reasonable time.
Supporting sources
377 U.S. 426 (1964)
…United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this title or the rules and regulations thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this title or the rules and regulations thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district…
Business Associations RelationshipsLiability rules related to business associations · Liability of corporate officers and directors under the Model Business Corporation Act (2016)NEXTGENIntermediate