Lawsuit against $GOOG board

of 199
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Articles & News Stories

Published:

Views: 5 | Pages: 199

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Description
Lawsuit filed in San Mateo County
Transcript
  Scanned with CamScanner    2   SHAREHOLDER   DERIVATIVE   COMPLAINT   12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728   TABLE   OF   CONTENTS   I.   NATURE   AND   SUMMARY   OF   THE   ACTION   ...........................................................5   II.    JURISDICTION   AND   VENUE   ......................................................................................10   III.   THE   PARTIES   ..................................................................................................................11   A.   Plaintiff   .................................................................................................................11   B.   Nominal   Defendant   ............................................................................................11   C.   Executive   Officer   Defendants   ............................................................................11   D.   Director   Defendants   ............................................................................................15   E.   Former   Director   Defendant   Tilghman   .............................................................18   F.   Doe   Defendants   ...................................................................................................19   G.   Unnamed   Participants   ........................................................................................19   IV.   RESPONSIBILITIES   AND   DUTIES   OF   THE   INDIVIDUAL   DEFENDANTS   ........20   A.   Responsibilities   of   the   Individual   Defendants................................................20   B.   Fiduciary   Duties   of   the   Individual   Defendants   ..............................................25   C.   Breaches   of   Fiduciary   Duties    by   Individual   Defendants   ..............................26   D.   Conspiracy,   Aiding   and   Abetting,   and   Concerted   Action   ............................27   V.   SUBSTANTIVE   ALLEGATIONS   ..................................................................................28   A.   Defendants   Brin   and   Page,   the   Company’s   Co ‐ Founders,   as   Well   as   Other   Senior   Executives,   Set   the   Tone   at   the   Top    by   Dating   Employees   and   Having   Extra ‐ Marital   Affairs   ................................................29   B.   In   2014   the   Individual   Defendants   Investigated   Allegations   of   Sexual   Harassment    by   Defendant   Rubin,   and   Found   the   Allegations   To   Be   Credible,   But   Concealed   Rubin’s   Harassment   and   Instead   Gave   Him   a   Hero’s   Farewell    by   Paying   Him   $90   Million   in   Severance   ..............................................................................................................31      3   SHAREHOLDER   DERIVATIVE   COMPLAINT   12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728   C.   The   Board   of   Directors’   and   Other   Defendants’   Active,   Direct,   and   Intentional   Role   in   the   Wrongdoing.................................................................33   D.   Alphabet’s   Current   Board   Failed   to   Come   Clean   in   Late   2017,   Even   After   a   News   Report   Surfaced   That   Suggested   Impropriety    by   Rubin   ......43   E.   Google   Paid   Another   Executive,   Amit   Singhal,   Millions   After   He   Sexually   Harassed   Google   Employees   .............................................................44   F.   Google   Asked   Other   Victims   of   Sexual   Harassment   to   “Stay   Quiet”   After   Their   Allegations   of   Harassment   Were   Found   to   Be   Credible   ...........46   G.   The   Director   Defendants   Caused   Google   to   File   False   Financial   Statements   With   the   SEC   ...................................................................................48   H.   The   Board’s   Conduct   Has   Caused   Substantial   Damage   to   the   Company   ..............................................................................................................51   VI.   UNJUST   COMPENSATION   AWARDED   TO   SOME   OF   THE   DEFENDANTS   ................................................................................................................55   VII.   DAMAGES   TO   ALPHABET   AND   GOOGLE   .............................................................59   VIII.   DERIVATIVE   AND   DEMAND   FUTILITY   ALLEGATIONS   ...................................60   A.   Demand   Is   Futile   Because   the   Demand   Directors   Lack   Independence   ......60   B.   At   the   Outset,   Demand   Is   Futile   as   to   Defendants   Page,   Brin,   Schmidt,   Greene   and   Pichai   Because,   as   Alphabet   Admits,   These   “Inside”   Demand   Directors   Lack   Independence............................................61   C.   Demand   Is   Futile   Because   Defendants   Page,   Brin,   and   Schmidt   Dominate   and   Control   the   Board   .....................................................................61   D.   Demand   is   Futile   Because   a   Majority   of   the   Board   Completely   Abdicated   Its   Fiduciary   Duties   .........................................................................64   E.   Demand   Is   Futile   Because   a   Majority   of   the   Board   Cannot   Conduct   an   Independent   and   Objective   Investigation   of   the   Misconduct   Due   to   Their   Close   Professional   and   Personal   Relationships   ...............................65      4   SHAREHOLDER   DERIVATIVE   COMPLAINT   12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728   F.   Demand   Is   Futile   Because   the   Demand   Defendants   Face   a   Substantial   Likelihood   of   Liability   for   Their   Misconduct   .............................73   G.   The   Statute   of   Limitations   Does   Not   Bar   Plaintiff’s   Claims   or,   Alternatively,   Was   Tolled   ..................................................................................76   IX.   CAUSES   OF   ACTION   ....................................................................................................77   X.   PRAYER   FOR   RELIEF   ....................................................................................................79  
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks