The Delaware Court of Chancery, in William Hughes, Jr. v. Xiaoming Hu, et al. and Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0112-JTL, memo. op. (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2020), denied defendants’ motion to dismiss derivative claims for failure to make demand, finding directors face a likelihood of Caremark liability for failure to implement financial controls, based on books and records absent from a purportedly complete 8 Del. C. § 220 production.

NEW: $$$ Day Pitney discusses the decision and recent Delaware case law addressing duty of oversight claims in Del. Caremark Opinion Shows Shift In Deference To Boards.

K&L Gates discusses the decision in Chancery Court Declines to Dismiss Derivative Claims For Audit Committee Oversight Failure and Unjust Enrichment.

Bryan Cave discusses the decision in Delaware Court of Chancery Again Declines to Dismiss a Caremark Oversight Failure Claim.

Freshfields discusses the decision in Recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision sustains another Caremark claim at the pleading stage.

Wachtell discusses the decision in Citing Thin Board Record, Delaware Court of Chancery Again Sustains Oversight Claim.

Cooley discusses the decision in Another Caremark claim survives dismissal.

D&O Diary’s Kevin LaCroix discusses the decision in Another Delaware Breach of the Duty of Oversight Case Survives Dismissal Motion

Duane Morris discusses the decision in Better Oversight Than Hindsight: Hughes v. Xiaming Hu demonstrates that directors and officers who fail to adequately oversee their company’s management expose themselves to personal liability

UCLA’s Professor Stephen Bainbridge discusses the decision in Is Caremark still the hardest claim for plaintiffs to win in corporate law? and More on the latest Caremark claim to survive a motion to dismiss.