قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The policyholder's diversity case against Qualcomm is rejected

The policyholder's diversity case against Qualcomm is rejected



A federal district court in Delaware has dismissed derivative litigation filed by shareholders against Qualcomm Inc. directors who accused them of illegal and discriminatory practices, citing the absence of black directors.

in the U.S. District Court. Wilmington accused the San Diego-based technology company of breach of trust and abuse of control, among other charges, according to Becky Kiger, commissioned by Qualcomm Inc. v. Steve Mollenkopf et. al. and Qualcomm Inc. Mr. Mollenkopf is the company's CEO and board member, while the remaining defendants are current or former board members.

The decision was reported by D&O diary .

The ruling was one of several lawsuits filed against diversity

When the case was dismissed, the judgment stated: "Unlike the typical derivative action, there was no specific event involving the company or the defendants that became public knowledge and expedited the filing of these complaints."

The appellant claimed that the company's proxy statement from 201

9 was "substantially false and misleading" when it said that its management committee's goal was to put together a board that provides "diversity of perspective and expertise", it said in the judgment.

"Statements about a board or a company's goal are impossible to act, as several courts have considered, "the verdict said.

Among other arguments, the plaintiff also said that the declaration of inclusion was false and misleading because the company had no African Americans on its board, and no African Americans or other minority candidates had been elected to the board in the past six years.

This "does not necessarily mean that the Governance Committee did not include or instruct its search companies to include "racially / ethnically diverse candidates in their pool of candidates. It can simply mean that these candidates have not advanced past the larger pool of candidates ", it was stated in the judgment when the complaint was rejected

, while the plaintiff's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.


Source link