
In CASE 20.4In re Abbott Laboratories Derivative Shareholders Litigation(2003) ,the shareholder-plaintiffs alleged the corporate directors breached their duty of good faith through their failure to follow up on repeated notices of regulatory noncompliance.How did the court rule?
A) The court ruled the directors were not liable and did not breach any duty of good faith because they were unaware of the issues, and accepted corporate governance procedures did not require the disclosure of the noncompliance notices to them.
B) The court ruledthe directors could not be held liable because the corporation's certificate of incorporation exempted directors from liability for breach of the duty of care.
C) The court ruledthe business judgment rule applied and that the plaintiffs' allegations could not withstand the protection of that rule.
D) The court ruledthe plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded allegations that, if true, constituted a breach of the duty of good faith leading to the directors' actions falling outside the protection of the business judgment rule.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q42: In a _,someone wishing to replace the
Q42: A _ occurs when minority shareholders are
Q43: _ occurs when a raider acquires stock
Q44: Fact Pattern 20-1
Tonya is the president of
Q45: A _ is an agreement in a
Q47: In CASE 20.6 Jones v.H.F.Ahmanson & Co.(1969),the
Q48: In CASE 20.3 In re Citigroup Inc.Shareholder
Q50: Brice is on the board of ABC
Q51: In CASE 20.5 Third Point LLC v.Ruprecht
Q57: A contractual provision insisted upon by a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents