1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.3d
  4. 283 A.3d
  5. 283 A.3d 1124 (2022)
 

GRIFFITH v. STEIN EX REL. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

No. 264, 2021.

283 A.3d 1124 (2022)

Sean J. GRIFFITH, Objector Below, Appellant, v. Shiva STEIN, derivatively ON BEHALF OF The GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., and individually as a stockholder of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Plaintiff Below, Appellee, and Lloyd C. Blankfein, M. Michele Burns, Gary D. Cohn, Mark A. Flaherty, William W. George, James A. Johnson, Ellen J. Kullman, Lakshmi N. Mittal, Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, Peter Oppenheimer, Debora L. Spar, Mark E. Tucker, David A. Viniar, Mark O. Winkelman, and the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Defendants Below, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Decided: August 16, 2022.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Anthony A. Rickey, Esquire (argued), MARGRAVE LAW LLC, Wilmington Delaware, Raffi Melkonian, Esquire , WRIGHT CLOSE & BARGER, LLP, Houston, Texas, for Objector Below, Appellant Sean J. Griffith.

Brian E. Farnan, Esquire , Michael J. Farnan, Esquire , Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Esquire , FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, A. Arnold Gershon, Esquire (argued), Michael A. Toomey, Esquire , BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, New York, New York, for Plaintiff Below, Appellee Shiva Stein.

Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire , J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esquire , Matthew L. Miller, Esquire , ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esquire (argued), David M.J. Rein, Esquire , SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants Below, Appellees Lloyd C. Blankein, M. Michele Burns, Gary D. Cohn, Mark A. Flaherty, William W. George, James A. Johnson, Ellen J. Kullman, Lakshmi N. Mittal, Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, Peter Oppenheimer, Debora L. Spar, Mark E. Tucker, David A. Viniar, and Mark O. Winkleman.

Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire , RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Nominal Defendant Below, Appellee The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

Before us is an objector's appeal from a Court of Chancery decision approving a litigation settlement for claims alleging excessive non-employee director compensation. Initially, the parties agreed to a preliminary settlement and presented it to the Court of Chancery for approval. The Court of Chancery sided with the objector...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases