{"id":1389,"date":"2022-08-19T21:22:18","date_gmt":"2022-08-19T21:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paulyshao.com\/?p=1389"},"modified":"2022-08-26T19:57:45","modified_gmt":"2022-08-26T19:57:45","slug":"sundquist-ex-rel-allstate-corp-v-wilson-et-al","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.paulyshao.com\/?p=1389","title":{"rendered":"B: Sundquist ex rel. Allstate Corp. v Wilson et al"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

When<\/strong><\/span> Denise Sundquist filed this derivative suit, two other Allstate stockholders had already filed derivative suits in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Those suits emerged from the same facts alleged in this case. The first state suit, Biefeldt v. Wilson et al., was filed nine months before this case; the second, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Wilson et al., one month before.<\/p>

Judge Gettleman stated, \u201cIn Biefeldt, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff had not adequately pled facts to show that a pre-suit demand would have been futile. After briefing, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion and dismissing the case without prejudice. The two suits were then consolidated under Biefeldt, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In that consolidated suit, the plaintiffs allege, as does plaintiff here, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and wasted corporate assets. Those plaintiffs do not, however, allege that defendants misappropriated non-public information.\u201d (Memorandum Opinion and Order<\/em>, No. 18-CV-3598, 12-4-18, p. 3.)<\/p>

He concluded, \u201cDefendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 21] is denied, without prejudice. Defendants’ motion in support of consolidation and appointment of lead and liaison counsel [Doc. 10] is denied as moot, without prejudice. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice [Doc. 32] is granted. When the state court proceedings conclude, any party may move this court to lift the stay and proceed with in a manner consistent with the state court’s rulings and any preclusion principles that may apply.\u201d (Id<\/em>., p. 14.)<\/p>

Ms. Sunquist passed away before 12-4-18 when Judge Gettleman rendered his opinion and order. Her lawyers filed a motion to substitute Kimberly Petersen as derivative plaintiff.<\/p>

Due to the fact that Biefeldt\u2019s dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Court on 2-25-22, Plaintiff of this case voluntarily dismisses the legal claim with prejudice as to plaintiff on 3-13-22.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n \n
\n\n
\n
\n