14‐1490
Michael G. Brautigam, An individual, v. Claes Dahlback, Stephen Friedman, James A.
Johnson, Lloyd C. Blankfein, William W. George, Gary D. Cohn, David Viniar, Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________
MICHAEL G. BRAUTIGAM, An individual,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 14‐1490
CLAES DAHLBACK, STEPHEN FRIEDMAN, JAMES A. JOHNSON, LLOYD C.
BLANKFEIN, WILLIAM W. GEORGE, GARDY D. COHN, DAVID VINIAR,
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.,
1
Defendants‐Appellees.
______________________
FOR APPELLANTS: ROBERT A. JIGARJIAN (Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz, LLP, New York, NY; John G. Emerson,
Emerson Poynter LLP, Houston, TX; William T.
Crowder, Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, AR, on the
brief), Jigarjian Law Office, San Rafael, CA.
FOR APPELLEES: ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR. (Richard H. Klapper,
Theodore Edelman, , David M.J. Rein, Benjamin R.
Walker, on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New
York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Paul A. Crotty, District Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff‐Appellant Michael G. Brautigam appeals from the district court’s
Opinion & Order, dated March 26, 2014, granting Defendants‐Appellees’ motion
to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
procedural history, and issues for review.1
1 Where “determination of the sufficiency of allegations of futility depends on the
circumstances of the individual case,” the standard of review for dismissals
based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 is abuse of discretion. Kaster v.
Modification Sys. Inc., 731 F.2d 1014, 1018 (2d Cir. 1984). “However, where a
challenge is made to the legal precepts applied by the district court in making a
2
Appellant argues that the district court erred by evaluating his demand
futility argument under Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993), which, in
derivative cases that do not involve a challenge to an action by the company’s
board of directors, requires courts to determine whether there is a “reasonable
doubt that . . . the board of directors could have properly exercised its
independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand.”
Id. at 933–34.2 Appellant contends that the rule set forth in Aronson v. Lewis, 473
A.2d 805 (Del. 1984), which generally applies to allegations of affirmative Board
action, is more appropriate. On a de novo review, we agree with the well‐
reasoned opinion of the district court that the Rales standard is applicable here.
The Complaint did not aver with particularity that Appellees had any role in
formulating the alleged statements or otherwise made any decisions about what
information to include or exclude from its disclosures. See Rales, 634 A.2d at 933
(“The absence of board action, therefore, makes it impossible to perform the
discretionary determination, plenary review of the district court’s choice and
interpretation of those legal precepts is appropriate.” Scalisi v. Fund Asset Mgmt.,
L.P., 380 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2004). We need not, and do not, address whether
an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate for dismissals based on the
sufficiency of the allegation of futility because our decision would be the same
under de novo review. See id. at 137 n.6.
In determining whether demand is excused, we apply the substantive law of
2
Delaware. See MBIA Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 652 F.3d 152, 163 (2d Cir. 2011).
3
essential inquiry contemplated by Aronson—whether the directors have acted in
conformity with the business judgment rule in approving the challenged
transaction.”).
Appellant contends that the district court erred in failing to infer from the
pleadings that Appellees Dahlback, Friedman, Johnson, and George could not
exercise disinterested business judgment in responding to his demand because, if
the derivative claim proceeded, they would face a “substantial likelihood” of
personal liability for breaching their duties of loyalty. Rales, 634 A.2d at 936.
Again we agree with the well‐reasoned views of the district court. The district
court clearly did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Complaint failed
to make particularized pleadings that Appellees Dahlback, Friedman, Johnson,
or George made decisions regarding collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”),
“knew what disclosures were and were not made to prospective CDO investors,
or had knowledge of any details of Goldman’s transactions regarding the short
and long positions it took in the CDOs.” Brautigam v. Blankfein, 8 F. Supp. 3d 395,
405 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); see In re Caremark Intʹl Inc. Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959, 968–
71 (Del. Ch. 1996).
4
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be
without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5