Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re eBay, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

2004 Del. Ch. LEXIS 4, 2004 WL 253521 (2004)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

In re eBay, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery

2004 Del. Ch. LEXIS 4, 2004 WL 253521 (2004)


In 1998, eBay hired Goldman Sachs to underwrite the initial public offering (IPO) of eBay stock. In doing so, Goldman Sachs allocated shares of the eBay IPO stock to eBay “insiders,” including members of eBay’s board of directors. Goldman Sachs's purpose in making the allocations was allegedly to increase the likelihood that eBay would hire Goldman Sachs again by bribing the recipients with the valuable IPO shares. This practice of allocating valuable IPO shares to favored clients was known as "spinning." Three of the directors on eBay's seven-member board received the IPO allocations and sold the shares on the open market for a significant profit. Shareholders of eBay (plaintiffs) brought derivative actions against the directors (defendants). The shareholders alleged that the directors’ acceptance of the private allocations of the valuable IPO stock violated their fiduciary duty to eBay by usurping eBay’s corporate opportunity, because eBay could and would have purchased the stock that was allocated. The plaintiffs alleged that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the directors in their breach of their fiduciary duty. It is undisputed that eBay could afford the stock financially, that it was in the business of investing in securities, and that eBay was never given an opportunity to turn down the allocations. The directors filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to make the necessary pre-suit demand on eBay's board of directors. The shareholders claimed that demand was excused as futile because three of the directors participated in the spinning, and the remaining four directors had close personal and professional ties to the involved directors and received eBay stock options that provided a significant financial incentive for them to retain their positions on the board.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, 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 516,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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 and answers

What is the meaning of ''in re'' in this specific case?

I know the latin meaning but I don't get how it'used 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership