Marx v. Akers Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A shareholder sued IBM’s board over excessive compensation without first demanding the board act. The court clarified New York’s test for when such a demand is futile but ultimately dismissed the suit for failing to adequately plead that the compensation constituted corporate waste.
Legal Significance: This case established New York’s definitive three-part test for determining when a pre-suit demand on a board of directors is excused as futile in a shareholder derivative action, refining the standard from Barr v. Wackman.
Marx v. Akers Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A shareholder of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) brought a derivative action against the company’s board of directors, alleging corporate waste and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint challenged two distinct board actions: (1) awarding excessive compensation to IBM’s executives, and (2) awarding excessive compensation to the 15 outside directors on the 18-member board. The plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on the board to initiate litigation, arguing that a demand would be futile. The futility argument was based on the fact that the directors being sued were the same ones who had authorized and received the allegedly excessive compensation. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the board increased outside director compensation from a base of $20,000 plus meeting fees to an annual retainer of $55,000 plus 100 shares of IBM stock, despite the company’s declining profitability. The plaintiff characterized this compensation as bearing “little relation to the part-time services rendered.” The lower courts dismissed the complaint for failure to make a demand.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under New York Business Corporation Law § 626(c), when is a pre-suit demand on a corporate board excused as futile, and what must a plaintiff plead to state a cause of action for corporate waste concerning director compensation?
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Demand was excused as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under New York Business Corporation Law § 626(c), when is a pre-suit demand on a corporate board excused as futile, and what must a plaintiff plead to state a cause of action for corporate waste concerning director compensation?
Conclusion
This case provides the controlling framework in New York for analyzing demand Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
In New York, a pre-suit demand in a shareholder derivative action is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals rejected both the Delaware `Aronson` test and a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Establishes New York’s three-part test for demand futility in a shareholder