In re Mindbody, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Pack Liquidating, LLC

    658 B.R. 305 (Bankr. D. Del. 2024)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Pack Liquidating, the court explained that derivative actions are born from state law as a procedural tool to address the issue of an entity's management refusing to pursue certain legal claims and, in such scenario, derivative standing is provided by state law.

    Id. See also In re Mindbody, Inc., Stockholder Litig., No. 2019-0442-KSJM, 2023 WL 2518149, at *31 n. 493 (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2023) ("In his capacity as a director, Stollmeyer was protected by an exculpatory charter provision, which means that Plaintiffs would have to prove that Stollmeyer acted disloyally or in bad faith to prevail on a claim against him as a director. Mindbody's exculpatory charter provision did not protect Stollmeyer from liability when he was acting as an officer.

  2. Roberts v. Moffa Constr. Co.

    C. A. S21C-10-017 CAK (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 20, 2024)

    Such a motion may be made by any party at any time, even after judgment, under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(b). In re Mindbody, Inc., 2023 WL 2518149, at *103 (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2023) (citations omitted). However, Rule 15(b) itself provides that, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, and Delaware courts have held that failure to amend the pleadings does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.