Multiple Choice
In CASE 20.3 In 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 ruled the 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 ruled the business judgment rule applied and that the plaintiffs' allegations could not withstand the protection of that rule.
D) The court ruled the 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
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q56: The _ standard of review comes into
Q57: A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit
Q58: The business judgment rule is applicable only
Q59: _ occurs when a raider acquires stock
Q60: A shareholder derivative action is a suit
Q61: The provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Q62: The Delaware Corporation Code allows the certificate
Q63: In a _,someone wishing to replace the
Q64: In the context of executive compensation,_ stock
Q65: What is greenmail? What is a standstill