Which of the following was the result in Hartleib v.Sirius Satellite Radio et al.,the case in the text in which shareholders of Sirius sued Sirius XM after a merger claiming that Sirius executives decreased stock prices by entering into agreements with XM to the effect that both companies would refrain from looking at other merger deals?
A) That the plaintiffs' generalized statements failing to identify specific wrongful acts and coming after changes in board membership were insufficient.
B) That the plaintiffs' statements, while generalized, were sufficient but that the plaintiff failed to file the complaint in a timely manner.
C) That the plaintiffs' statements were sufficiently specific, that the complaint was filed in a timely manner, and that a trial would be conducted later.
D) That the plaintiffs' statements were sufficiently specific, that the complaint was filed in a timely manner, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages as a matter of law.
E) That the plaintiffs had no authority to proceed after the merger.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

As recognized by the court "Although the complaint identifies alleged fraud and wrongdoing committed by Defendants, it does not state how each specific Sirius director was responsible for those actions…Such generalized allegations are even more ineffective in situations, like this one, where the majority of the board was not empanelled at the time of the alleged wrongdoing."

Which of the Following Was the Result in Hartleib V