Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Easco and Danaher merged, and Easco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher. Their prospectus said that they would make investments in government bonds and other securities. Blasband (P) alleges that they invested in highly speculative junk bonds, which have since declined in value. The companies lost about $14 million in the transaction. The Rales brothers (D) were directors and officers in both Easco and Danaher at all relevant times. P then demanded information about the junk bond transaction and was denied by the D. P sues D because they refused to disclose information on their junk bond investments. A question was certified to the Delaware Supreme Court as to whether P alleged sufficient facts to show that demand was excused.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.