A plaintiff’s “equitable standing” to bring a shareholder derivative action is hardly a common issue in litigation of the sort, which makes all the more interesting last week’s decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery rejecting a plaintiff’s attempt to bypass the contemporaneous ownership rule. Read more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.

The recent opinion by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in In re Strom Irrevocable Trust III, 2022 NY Slip Op 01356, provides a cautionary tale to estate litigators who conduct SCPA 1404 examinations in the face of a trust instrument’s in terrorem clause. While in terrorem clauses are strictly construed, the Appellate Division found that the subject clause had been triggered as a result of conduct engaged in by the respondent during the course of a probate proceeding regarding the grantor’s will. Ilene S. Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post.

While the removal of a fiduciary has long been the subject of Surrogate’s Court opinions, it is not often that the Appellate Division weighs in on the issue. However, in Matter of Epstein, the Second Department did just that, and issued an opinion that serves as an important guidepost for the kind of conduct that warrants removal. Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post.

This week’s post introduces the latest episode of the Business Divorce Roundtable podcast, featuring an interview with Professor Meredith Miller of Touro Law Center discussing her recent law review article entitled Challenging Gender Discrimination in Closely Held Firms: The Hope and Hazard of Corporate Oppression Doctrine. Please give it a listen!