Peter V. YOUNG and Ellen Roberts Young, Plaintiffs,
v.
Paul J. KLAASSAN, Teresa M. Klaassan, David W. Faeder, Timothy S. Smick, Thomas B. Newell, Brian C. Swinton, Christian B.A. Slavin, Larry E. Hulse, Tiffany L. Tomasso, Robert R. Slager, Carl Adams, Ronald V. Aprahamian, Craig R. Callen, David G. Bradley, J. Douglas Holladay, and Thomas J. Donohue, Defendants, and
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Nominal Defendant.
Court of Chancery of Delaware.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted: April 8, 2008.
Decided: April 25, 2008.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, Carmella P. Keener, Esquire, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esquire, Roy L. Jacobs, Esquire, Paskowitz & Associates, New York City; Samuel R. Simon, Esquire, Jacobs Law Group, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Karin E. Fisch, Esquire, Orin Kurtz, Esquire, Natalie Marcus, Esquire, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, New York City, for Peter V. Young and Ellen Roberts Young.
Kenneth Nachbar, Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Millian, Esquire, Matthew R. Estabrook, Esquire, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, for Paul J. Klaassan, Teresa M. Klaassan, David W. Faeder, Timothy S. Smick, Thomas B. Newell, Brian C. Swinton, Christian B.A. Slavin, Larry E. Hulse, Tiffany L. Tomasso, Robert R. Slager, Carl Adams, Ronald V. Aprahamian, Craig R. Callen, J. Douglas Holladay, and Thomas J. Donohue.
Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esquire, Jeremy D. Anderson, Esquire, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Philip A. Sechler, Esquire, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC, for David G. Bradley.
Lawrence C. Ashby, Esquire, Richard D. Heins, Esquire, Richard L. Renck, Esquire, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; George H. Mernick, III, Esquire, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC; N. Thomas Connally, Esquire, Jon M. Talotta, Esquire, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, McLean, VA, for Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware.
OPINION
LAMB, Vice Chancellor.
This opinion addresses the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents in connection with pending motions to dismiss for failure to make a demand.1 As in Fleischman v. Huang,2 the defendants' briefs in support of those motions expressly and repeatedly rely on the reportedly favorable findings of the special board committee that investigated...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
