Remember those "what's wrong with this picture" games? Let's play a verbal version. Take a look at this passage from the Second Circuit's opinion in Espinoza v. Dimon:
Several Delaware intermediate appellate court cases also cited by the district court expound further on this principle that a board has wide latitude over how it chooses to investigate a demand. In Mount Moriah Cemetery ex rel. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. v. Moritz, 1991 WL 50149, at *2 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 1991), for example, the board refused a demand for legal action against executives that had exposed the corporation to liability for deceptive sales practices.
What's wrong with that statement?
