In re Caremark International, Inc. Derivative Litigation

←Delaware case law

In re Caremark International, Inc. Derivative Litigation by the Delaware Court of Chancery Syllabus

Opinion of the Court→

In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), is a Delaware Court of Chancery decision setting out an expanded discussion of a director's duty of care in the oversight context. The opinion was written by Chancellor Allen. — Excerpted from In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE

698 A.2d 959

IN RE CAREMARK INTERNATIONAL INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

No. 13670  Argued: August 16, 1996 --- Decided: September 25, 1996

Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, of ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS & GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: LOWEY DANNENBERG BEMPORAD & SELINGER, P.C., White Plains, New York; GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW, L.L.P., New York, New York; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire, Thomas A. Beck, Esquire and Richard I.G. Jones, Jr., Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Howard M. Pearl, Esquire, Timothy J. Rivelli, Esquire and Julie A. Bauer, Esquire, of WINSTON & STRAWN, Chicago, Illinois; Attorneys for Caremark International, Inc.

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire, of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: William J. Linklater, Esquire, of BAKER & McKENZIE, Chicago, Illinois; Attorneys for Individual Defendants.

ALLEN, CHANCELLOR

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents." These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5). A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.