Zion Oil & Gas Escapes Investor Suit In Del. Over SEC Probe
Dec 2, 2019 20:34:55 GMT -5
ccrc79 likes this
Post by Ethan / JRyan on Dec 2, 2019 20:34:55 GMT -5
A Delaware federal judge has tossed a shareholder derivative suit claiming Zion Oil & Gas officers misled investors about an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and benefited from inflated stock prices before the probe came to light, citing a procedural deficiency for the dismissal.
LINK but not whole thing...interesting
By Rose Krebs (November 27, 2019, 3:09 PM EST)
Hmmm I wonder why? Tossed it out? After all this time?
The link to the whole thing,Thank Bill
Judgement Tossed out
IV. CONCLUSION
The essence of Plaintiffs' complaint appears to be that I should hold Director Defendants
"personally liable for making ( or allowing to be made) business decisions that, in hindsight,
turned out poorly for the Company." In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. S 'holder Litig., 2011 WL
4826104, at *22 (Del. Ch. 2011 ). "If an actionable duty to monitor business risk exists, it cannot
encompass any substantive evaluation by a court of a board' s determination of the appropriate
amount of risk. Such decisions plainly involve business judgment." Id. I do not find that the
Plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity any facts that suggest that Director Defendants acted in
bad faith or otherwise consciously disregarded their oversight responsibilities in regard to Zion' s
prospects for discovery and extraction of oil.
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D .I. 21) is
GRANTED. An accompanying order will be entered.
The essence of Plaintiffs' complaint appears to be that I should hold Director Defendants
"personally liable for making ( or allowing to be made) business decisions that, in hindsight,
turned out poorly for the Company." In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. S 'holder Litig., 2011 WL
4826104, at *22 (Del. Ch. 2011 ). "If an actionable duty to monitor business risk exists, it cannot
encompass any substantive evaluation by a court of a board' s determination of the appropriate
amount of risk. Such decisions plainly involve business judgment." Id. I do not find that the
Plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity any facts that suggest that Director Defendants acted in
bad faith or otherwise consciously disregarded their oversight responsibilities in regard to Zion' s
prospects for discovery and extraction of oil.
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D .I. 21) is
GRANTED. An accompanying order will be entered.