In an August 19, 2011 decision by Justice Emerson concerning a shareholder dispute, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty based on forum non conveniens. Upon balancing the relevant factors, the court found that the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would best be served if the litigation proceeded in Nevada because: (1) five consolidated Nevada state court actions asserting similar breach of fiduciary duty claims were previously filed and already pending against the defendants as well as other members of the corporation’s board of directors; (2) the defendant corporation was incorporated in Nevada and therefore Nevada law applied to the breach of fiduciary duty claims; (3) the corporation lacked a substantial nexus to New York because its principal place of business was China, its only physical presence in the state was a home office maintained by its Secretary and VP of Finance, it had no other officers, directors or employees in New York, and its corporate records did not reflect that any of its stockholder meetings were held in New York.
Matter of Harbin Shareholders Litig., Sup Ct Suffolk County, August 19, 2011, Emerson, J, Index No. 35327-10.