California State Teachers' Retirement System v. Alvarez
179 A.3d 824 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judgment dismissing a shareholder derivative suit for failure to plead demand futility precludes other shareholders from litigating the same issue on behalf of the corporation, provided the first group of shareholders provided constitutionally adequate representation.
Facts:
- In April 2012, The New York Times reported on an alleged bribery scheme and subsequent cover-up by executives at Wal-Mart's Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico ('WalMex').
- Following the news report, a group of shareholders (the 'Arkansas Plaintiffs') filed derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- Another group of shareholders (the 'Delaware Plaintiffs') filed separate derivative lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- The Delaware Plaintiffs, following the advice of the Delaware Chancellor, initiated a lengthy process to obtain Wal-Mart's internal books and records to strengthen their complaint, a process which took nearly three years.
- The Arkansas Plaintiffs were aware of the Delaware Chancellor's advice but chose not to seek internal company documents, believing the information in the New York Times article was sufficient to proceed.
- While the Delaware Plaintiffs were still litigating their records demand, the Arkansas Plaintiffs proceeded with their case based on the publicly available information.
Procedural Posture:
- Arkansas Plaintiffs filed eight derivative complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- Delaware Plaintiffs filed seven derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- The Arkansas federal court initially stayed its proceedings pending the litigation in Delaware.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the stay.
- Defendants in the Arkansas action then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead demand futility.
- The Arkansas federal district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on March 31, 2015.
- The Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Delaware complaint, arguing the Arkansas judgment had preclusive effect under the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).
- The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The Delaware Plaintiffs, as Appellants, appealed the Court of Chancery's dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does applying issue preclusion based on a federal court's dismissal of a shareholder derivative action for failure to plead demand futility violate the subsequent stockholders' Due Process rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Valihura, Justice
No, applying issue preclusion does not violate the subsequent stockholders' Due Process rights. Under federal law, the Due Process rights of subsequent derivative plaintiffs are protected, and dismissal based on issue preclusion is appropriate when their interests were aligned with and adequately represented by the prior plaintiffs. Here, both the Arkansas and Delaware Plaintiffs had the same interest: to sue on behalf of the corporation, Wal-Mart, which is the real party in interest. This alignment of interests establishes privity. The key inquiry then becomes whether the Arkansas Plaintiffs' representation was constitutionally 'adequate.' The court found that the representation was not 'grossly deficient.' The Arkansas Plaintiffs' choice to forgo seeking books and records was a tactical decision made by experienced counsel, and while it proved to be a mistake, it did not sink to the level of constitutionally inadequate representation that would violate the Due Process rights of the Delaware Plaintiffs. Therefore, respecting the finality of the Arkansas federal court's judgment through issue preclusion is proper.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the preclusive effect of demand futility rulings in multi-jurisdictional shareholder derivative litigation, prioritizing judicial economy and comity over allowing multiple attempts to litigate the same preliminary issue. It creates a significant 'race to judgment' risk, where a faster, less-prepared plaintiff can extinguish a more diligent plaintiff's claim, even one following Delaware's recommended best practices of using 'tools at hand' like a Section 220 demand. The ruling effectively places a burden on shareholder plaintiffs to monitor, and possibly seek to intervene in, parallel litigation in other forums to protect their interests, as a tactical error by one group can now definitively bind all others.
