Case Updates
Delaware Supreme Court rejects attempt to re-litigate claims even after final judgment entered
April 04, 2013
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that two pension funds (LAMPERS and UFCW) could not sue the drug maker Allergan and its directors in Delaware for allegedly improper “off-label” marketing of BOTOX because a California federal court had dismissed identical California lawsuits. NCLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of Allergan. According to the Delaware Supreme Court, the California judgment had the effect of barring re-litigation of virtually identical claims in Delaware courts. The alleged off-label marketing that gave rise to this derivative lawsuit previously resulted in a $600 million settlement with the federal government.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
August 21, 2012
NCLC urged the Delaware Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that held that when a court dismisses a derivative complaint involving a Delaware corporation, the complaint should be decided under Delaware law, and the dismissal of that claim will not preclude related litigation in courts outside Delaware.
NCLC's amicus brief argued that the lower court's approach would expose businesses to multiple lawsuits in courts across the country based on the same set of allegations, even after a court has rendered a final judgment rejecting the derivative complaint. The first final judicial determination should settle the same set of allegations once and for all. Instead, the lower court's approach would leave businesses guessing whether a final resolution of a derivative suit is really final.
NCLC explained that such inconclusiveness serves no one—not corporations, not boards of directors, not investors—all of whom value certainty, efficiency, and predictability. And repeated re-litigation of the same issue serves no legitimate purpose.