Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Auerbach v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of New York
47 N.Y.2d 619 (1979)


 

Facts

The board of directors of General Telephone & Electronics Corporation (defendant) conducted an investigation and found that General Telephone and its officers had made bribe payments, and that some of the directors had been directly involved in those payments. Auerbach (plaintiff), a shareholder, in connection with other shareholders including Wallenstein, brought a derivative action against the board, General Telephone, and Arthur Anderson & Co., General Telephone’s outside auditor. Auerbach’s complaint alleged that the board members involved in the transactions and Arthur Anderson were both liable to General Telephone for the money lost through those improper transactions. The board of directors formed a special litigation committee, composed of directors who joined the board after the questionable transactions took place, and asked them to evaluate what General Telephone should do about the litigation Auerbach initiated. The special committee found that the directors had not violated their fiduciary duties, and that the claims were without merit, and that the lawsuit should be dismissed. After this finding, the trial court dismissed the action, and Wallenstein (but not Auerbach) appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

Dissent (Cooke, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Why wasn't demand discussed in this case?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.