WPC< ~8_dg_9фpWYceBݏw֡=knFr|M*ES%)h|z5zHB Ѵd[*}1Ť^fqmutչaa?3,$Ghq,m[Ysإi`e4;a#C't)pfoWgUBgh6a(Ba$ڰAz5Lu}]\H8Ηlx#2:stF )2;b):e'lruq&du`3Jё>-Ld#sK\U4;/ęM6sGWe#z醳腈^Ge:yO}\%kFhXm3镍քJ!97O`0-_gj-Cg "(j3csB7z`Sm5tFALȱH{FU[> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0: 0M 0N 0O 0P 0Q 0R 0S 0T 0U 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V! 0V" 0V# 0<V$ 0 <$ 0 $% 0& 1e'UGJ("J( Bl( 0C(,(","-"<-^-"m2"2"2"2"2_3"v7"7"7 078 08#9U NI; %;M;(;N; 1u; 72@<^ r<w~<4<< m<\  `&Times New Roman' TOMRAN, INC Training0thomast .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref2\+P 0Level 1    X 8.` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8    ")..      :06X:X06:06    XxYX06  06XXxY(2$ 8(!..      :06X:X06:06    35;AGMSY_11.11111111111111kIA`2WP TypographicSymbols      d($     " 8(!..      :06X:X06:06  B.` hp x (#XB  X  XxYX06  1  8  Afterthefilingofthefirstamendedcomplaintbutpriortothehearingonthemotions  todismiss,AIBannouncedaproposedmergerandacquisitionbetweenAllfirstFinancialand  M&TBankCorporation.Theproposedmergerandacquisitionhasnowbeenapprovedbythe | shareholdersofbothM&TBankCorporationandAIBandawaitsratificationbyU.S.andIrish b bankregulators.Plaintiffhadsoughtdiscoveryinconnectionwiththeproposedmergerand H acquisitionwhilethesemotionswerependingbuttheCourtdeclinedtopermitsame. F. ~06XXxY                 8(!..      :06X:X06:06  B.` hp x (#XB  X  XxYX06  2  8  InargumentbeforetheCourt,plaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%scounselappearedtoofferasomewhatmore  restrainedinterpretationofitsrightsunderthedepositagreement.Theyarguedthattheintentof  thegoverninglawprovisionwastocreateparitybetweenregisteredshareholdersandbeneficial ~ ownersofsharesinAIB,atleastforthepurposeofchallengingtheactionsofAIB$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sBoardof d Directors.BecausetheCourtdoesnotbelievethattheinstrumentcanbereadeventhatbroadly, L thisalternativepositiondoesnotadvanceplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sstandinghere. J2 06XXxY                          U 8(!..      :06X:X06:06  B.` hp x (#XB  X  XxYX06  3  8  PlaintiffurgestheCourttodojustthat,citingtheWright&Millertreatise(Wright,  Miller&Cooper,FederalPrac.&Proc.2d(1996)onthedoctrinederivedfromthefamouscase  ofErieRailroadCo.v.Tompkins,304U.S.64(1938).TheCourtdisagrees.Notrend | supportiveofplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%spositionistobediscernedfromtheIrishauthoritiesreviewedbythis b Court.NoristhisacasewhereforumlawmustbesubstitutedbecausetheCourtisunableto J gleanIrishlawfromthematerialsavailabletoit. H0 06XXxY               (2K$ 8(!..      :06X:X06:06  xYX06  0  #|x(r($..      :06X:X06:06HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular:X3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)?i)y/ h.yweb0U 8(!..      :06X:X06:06  _       !806dd8 hB.` hp x (#XBXxYX06TOMRAN,INC.    h   *  INTHE    hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT |   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#Ev.   `     h   *  FOR H   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EWILLIAMM.PASSANO,JR.,etal. h   *  BALTIMORECITY  d   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EDefendants    h   *  Part20  0   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  CaseNo.:24C02002561    [2003MDBT3]    `  hE.` hp x (#X(#E x   ` * ^   ****************************************************************************** D  3p x (#X(#3Q MEMORANDUMANDOPINION  *z  H.` hp x (#X(#H #  (03?" "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E " 2  1  .3      Background "  ݌ F Ќ X' X(#X(#'   PlaintiffTomran,Inc.(hereinafter$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%Tomran$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%),whichassertsthatitowns  approximately4,800AmericandepositarysharesinAlliedIrishBanks,PLC(hereinafter$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%AIB$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%),  throughcounsel,onMarch6,2002andagainonApril5,2002madedemandonthechairmanof b AIBandthechairmanofAllfirstFinancial,Inc.(hereinafter$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%AllfirstFinancial$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%)andAllfirst .~ Bank(hereinafter$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%Allfirst$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%)totakeimmediatelegalactiontorecoverlossesreportedat N approximately$691,000,000.00duringtheperiod1997through2002fromcurrencytrading  lossesmadebyJohnRusnak,anemployeeofAllfirst.Thefirstletterindicatedthatunless   proceedingswereinitiatedagainsttheresponsiblepartiesbyMarch25,2002,itwasTomran$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%s f"! intentiontofilesuitonbehalfofAllfirstand/orAIBtorecoverthelosses.AIBrespondedtothe 6$# March6letterthroughcounselonMarch28,2002,posingquestionsaboutplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sstandingto &R!% bringashareholderactionagainstAIBunderIrishlawandprovidingplaintiffwithacopyofthe '"#'  reportonthecurrencytradinglossessubmittedtoAIB$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sBoardofDirectorsonMarch12,2002. )$) & l<` %Thereafter,onMay13,2002TomranfiledaderivativeactionintheCircuitCourt   forBaltimoreCityonbehalfofAIBwithrespecttotheforeigncurrencytradinglosses.The | actionwasbroughtagainstcurrentandformerdirectorsandofficersofAllfirstandagainst H Allfirst,AllfirstFinancialandAIBasnominaldefendants.Thatactionwasmetbydefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%  d motionstodismissand,atahearingconductedbeforethisCourtonAugust8,2002,theCourt  4 agreedtoreserverulingondefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁmotionstodismissandtopermitplaintifftofilean   amendedcomplaint,whichitdidonAugust14,2002,suingthesamedefendantsbutthistime   stylingitsactionasa$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%triplederivative$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀactiononbehalfofAllfirstbyashareholderinAllfirst$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%s L  ultimateparent,AIB.Thefirstamendedcomplaintattemptstostatecausesofactionfor l negligence(CountI),grossnegligence(CountII),foradeclaratoryjudgmentandaninjunction 8 regardingtheDecember,1998transaction(CountIII),andpraysajurytrialonallissuesso  triable.Again,defendantsfiledmotionstodismissandthesemotions,withrespecttothefirst  amendedcomplaint,werethesubjectofahearingbeforethisCourtconductedonNovember22, L 2002.  ( '  1     B8  Aftercarefullyconsideringthevoluminousmaterialsubmittedbycounselforthe h respectivepartiesandtheargumentspresentedonNovember22,2002,theCourt,having 4 assumedthetruthofallwellpleadedrelevantfacts,hasdeterminedthatthefirstamended  complaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedand,accordingly,willgrantthe |!  defendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁmotionstodismissforthereasonssetforthherein. H#" % % %  )" "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E 2  2  .3      Jurisdiction ݌ | Ќ X' X(#X(#'   Attheoutset,defendantsassertthatthelongstanding$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%internalaffairsdoctrine$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%Ԁis H acompletebartothepresentaction.Whileneithersidecavilswiththerespectlongaccordedthe  h internalaffairsdoctrineincorporatelaw,theirpositionsdifferdramatically.Defendantsclaim  4 thatthedoctrinedeprivesthisCourtofjurisdictionovertheinternalaffairsofaforeign   corporationsuchasAIB,buttheplaintiffassertsthatthedoctrinehasevolved,duringthelatter |  halfofthe20thCentury,intoachoiceoflawprinciplenowrecognizedinboththe1971 H  Restatement(2d)ofConflictofLawsandbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinEdgarv.Mite d Corp.,etal,457U.S.624,64546(1982). 0 ThemostrecentMarylandcasetodiscusstheinternalaffairsdoctrineisNAACP  v.Golding,342Md.663(1996),whichinvolvedtheinternalaffairsofanonprofit,voluntary x membershipcorporation,incorporatedintheStateofNewYork.TheBaltimoreCityCircuit D Courthadintervenedattherequestofcertainyouthmembersandenjoinedtheorganizationto ` conductanelectionandtopermittheyouthmemberstovote.Thisdecisionwasreversedbythe , CourtofAppealsofMaryland,whichheldthat,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thetrial  courtshouldnothaveintervenedintheorganization$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sinternaldispute.NAACPv.Goldingrefers t!  specificallytotheSupremeCourt$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sutteranceinEdgarv.MiteCorp.,supra,totheeffectthatthe D#" internalaffairsdoctrineisaconflictoflawsprincipleandappliesthatdoctrinenarrowly,stating %d $ $X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%[T]hus,ordinarily,weshallnotinterveneintheinternalaffairsofaforeigncorporation.$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀId,at &0"&  674. ($( ) ) )  *WhileitisclearfromNAACPv.Goldingthattheinternalaffairsdoctrineisalive   andwellinMaryland,thecaseisdistinguishablebecauseitturnsonboththelimited | circumstancesunderwhichacourtshouldaddressthedisputesofvoluntarymembership H organizations,particularlywherethereisnoeconomicinterestatstake,andonthefailureofthe  d youthmemberstoexhausttheirinternalremedies.  0 Also,totheextenttowhichtheinternalaffairsdoctrinehasevolvedintoa    conflictoflawsissue,itnaturallyentailsaforumnonconveniensanalysiswhichwouldseemto x  favorplaintiffunderthefactsofthepresentcase.Asemphasizedbyplaintiff,theactsgiving D  risetotheclaimshereoccurredinMaryland,theevidenceandwitnessesrelatedtotheclaimsare ` principallylocatedinMaryland,asaremostofthedefendants,includingnominaldefendant , Allfirst,whichisaMarylandcharteredbank.Inthesecircumstances,theCourtisnotprepared  tosaythataMarylandcourtisrequiredtoabstainfromexercisingjurisdictionovertheinternal t affairsofAIB,evenifthatentailstheapplicationofforeignlawtotherightsanddutiesofthe @ parties.  \ " "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E Y02  3  .3      ChoiceofLaw Y0:1݌ ( Ќ X' X(#X(#'   Aninterpretationofthedepositagreement,pursuanttowhichTomranownsa  beneficialinterestinAIB,iscriticaltoadeterminationofthechoiceoflawissueinthiscase. p!  +Initsmemoranduminoppositiontothemotions,plaintiffplacesgreatrelianceon <#" thetersestatementcontainedin$X%XXXxY'XxYXX$X%7.6oftheinstrumentwithrespecttothegoverninglaw.That %X $ languagestatesthat$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%Thisdepositagreementandthereceiptsshallbeinterpretedandallrights &("& hereunderandthereundershallbegovernedbythelawsoftheStateofNewYork.$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀContrasting (#( thislanguagetothatcontainedinadepositagreementintheBatchelderv.Kawamoto,147F.3d x*%*  *+ * +* +  915(CA1998)case,TomranurgestheCourttoholdthatthefailureofAIBtoincludelimiting  languagesuchasthatwhichwascontainedintheHondaCorporationinstrument,whichstated | that$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%Therightsofholdersofstockandotherdepositedsecurities,andthedutiesandobligations H oftheCompanyinrespectofsuchholders,assuch,shallbegovernedbythelawsofJapan,$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%  h clearlyleavessuchdeterminationsinthiscasewithrespecttoAIBtobegovernedbythelawsof  8 NewYork.AccordingtoTomran,becauseNewYorklawrecognizesthestandingofa    beneficialownerofsharesafterdemand,sanctionsderivativesuitsbasedonmisconductbythe   officersanddirectorswherethecompanyfailstoactafterdemand,andpermitsmultiple L  derivativesuitssuchasthis,TomranisentitledtobringthisproceedinginthenameofAllfirst h andAIBagainstthebank$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sofficersanddirectors,withoutregardtoIrishlaw.  , '  2     ;   4 Defendants,ontheotherhand,strenuouslyassertthatitwouldrequirealeapof  faithfortheCourttotakethelanguageof$X%XXXxY'XxYXX$X%7.6andreaditasapredicateforatriplederivative  shareholderactionagainstabankincorporatedunderthelawsofIreland.Thedefendantsurge P theCourttoreadthedepositagreementinitsentiretyandtotakeintoaccountthenatureofthe l obligationsspelledoutunder$X%XXXxY'XxYXX$X%5.3forthedepositary,thecustodianandtheissuerandtoread 8 sameinconjunctionwiththegoverninglawprincipleof$X%XXXxY'XxYXX$X%7.6.  -WhileAIBcouldhaveputthisissuetorestbyincludinglanguagesimilartothat !  containedintheHondaCorporationdepositagreement,discussedinBatchelderv.Kawamoto, T#" - - -  supra,thisCourtdoesnotbelievethatAIB$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sfailuretoaddressthegoverninglawforanactionof  thistypewithintheconfinesofitsdepositagreementisalonedeterminativeofthechoiceoflaw  whichshouldgovernanactionofthisnature.Indeed,underthecircumstancesofthiscase, L wheretheCourthasheldthattheinternalaffairsdoctrinedoesnotposeacompletebartoits  h exerciseofjurisdictionovertheinternalaffairsofaforeigncorporation,itisunwillingtogo  4 fartherandignorethewellsettledprinciplesthatunderliethatdoctrineandrequirethatthelaw   oftheplaceofincorporationgoverntherightsandresponsibilitiesofthepartieswithrespectto |  itsinternaloperations.Kostolanyv.Davis,etal.,1995Del.Ch.LEXIS135.Consequently,the H  CourtwillapplyIrishlawindeterminingthesustainabilityofplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sclaimsinthiscase. d " "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E pE2  4  .3      IrishLaw pEQF݌ 4 Ќ X' X(#X(#'   HavingdeterminedthatchoiceoflawprinciplesrequiretheapplicationofIrish  lawtotheclaimsinthiscase,theCourt,asplaintiffcorrectlypointsout,isauthorizedtotake | judicialnoticeofthecommonlawandstatutesofjurisdictionswherethesystemoflawderives H fromthecommonlawofEnglandandtoinformitselfoftherelevantlawsin$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%themannerit d deemsproper,$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%Ԁcallinguponcounseltoaiditinobtainingappropriateinformation.Md.Code 4 Ann.[Cts.&Jud.Proc.]$X%XXXxY''XxYXX$X%10501and10502.Inthiscasecounselfortherespectiveparties  havebriefedtherelevantlawofIreland,Englandandthecommonwealthcountriesandprovided !  theCourtwithaffidavitstatementsfromdistinguishedmembersoftheEnglishandIrishbar. P#" .Distillingthatmaterial,itisapparentthattheplaintiffmustovercomethree %l $ relatedbutdistincthurdlesinordertosurvivedefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁmotions.Firstofall,Tomranmust &8"& establishitsentitlement,asabeneficialownerofAIBsharesratherthanaregisteredshareholder, ($( tobringashareholderderivativeactionagainstAIB.Secondly,plaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sfirstamended *%* . . .  complaintmustsetforthallegationssufficienttoconstitutea$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%fraudontheminority$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%Ԁexceptionto  theruleinthecaseofFossv.Harbottle,2Hare461(1843),whichstandsforthegeneral  propositionunderIrishlawthatevenregisteredshareholdersmaynotmaintainanactionon L behalfofthecompany.Thirdly,TomranmustconvincethisCourtthatIrishlawwouldpermit  h atriplederivativeactionsuchasthatstatedinitsfirstamendedcomplaint.  4 TheCourtdoesnotbelievethatplaintiff,althoughitmadeanimpressiveeffortto   doso,hasovercomeanyofthosehurdles.Theparties$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%ԀresearchhasuncoverednoIrishcasein |  whichabeneficialownerofsharesinanIrishcompanywaspermittedtomaintainaderivative L  action,evenwheretheclaimantwasabletosetforthallegationsthatwouldconstituteexceptions h totheruleinFossv.Harbottle.Consequently,plaintiffreferstheCourttothree19thCentury 4 Englishcases,onwhichtheyassertthattheIrishcourtswouldmostlikelyrelyinfashioninga  rulingconsistentwiththerealitiesofmoderncommercialpracticeinIreland.Defendants | naturallypointtotheseeminginconsistencyinassertingthat21stCenturyIrishcourtswouldturn H to19thCenturyEnglishcaseswhenestablishingnewIrishlawtocomportwiththerealitiesof d moderncommercialpractice.Theycounterwithtwofairlyrecentdecisionsfromthecommon 0 lawjurisdictionsofNewSouthWalesandtheCaymanIslands,bothofwhichholdthatonlya  registeredshareholderhasstandingtopursueaderivativeclaimonbehalfofacorporation.See x!  HookerInvestmentsPty.Ltd.v.Email,Ltd.,(1986)10ACLR443;Svanstromv.Jonasson, D#" (1997)CILR192.Thedefendantsclaimthatthesecaseswouldbemorepersuasivetoamodern %` $ Irishcourtbecausetheyaremoretemporallyandfactuallyrelevantthanplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sauthorities. &,"& /Withrespecttothoseauthorities,defendantspointoutthatneitherBagshawv. (#( EasternUnionRailwayCo.,(1849)7Hare114norBinneyv.InceHallCoal&CannelCo., x*%* / / /  (1866)35L.J.Ch.363werereallyshareholderderivativeactions.Moreover,plaintiffinthe  thirdcase,GreatWesternRailwayv.Rushout,(1852)5DeG.&Sm.290,owneditssharesin | thesubjectcompanythroughatrusteeandwaspermittedstandingtosuederivativelybythe H courtbutthecaseturnedinpartatleastontheinterpretationofanactofParliamentwhich  d grantedthecompany$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%scharterandstatedthatitshouldnotbeboundtoseetotheexecutionof  0 anytrust.Itisdefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁcontentionthatthecourt$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sinterpretationofthestatutorylanguage   thererendersthecasedistinguishablefromthepresentactionandaninsufficientprecedentfor   establishingthegeneralavailabilityofderivativeactionstobeneficialownersofcompanystock. L  Theparties$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁrespectiveexpertsdisagreeonhowtheseauthoritieswouldbe h construedbyanIrishcourttoday.Plaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sIrishcounsel,EoinMcCullough,S.C.,statesthat 8 the19thCenturyEnglishcases,combinedwiththewellestablishedprinciplethatderivative  actionsareequitableinnatureandwiththecommonunderstandingamongcorporatelawyersin  IrelandthatAmericandepositaryreceiptsarethemeansthroughwhichIrishquotedcompanies P markettheirsharesintheU.S.,wouldconvinceanIrishcourttodaythatTomranshouldbe l permittedtopursueitsactionagainstAIBunderthefactssetforthinitsfirstamendedcomplaint. 8 Defendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁexpert,MichaelAshe,S.C.,Q.C.,isadmittedtothebarinEngland,Wales,Ireland  andNorthernIreland.HestatesthatIrishlawisextremelyrestrictiveoftherightofshareholders !  tosueinthenameofan/oronbehalfofthecompanyinwhichtheyholdshares.Inhisopinion, P#" underIrishlaw,therighttomaintainsuchanactiondoesnotexistinfavorofanypersonor %l $ entitywhichisnotitselfaregisteredordinaryshareholderand,therefore,amemberofAIBand, &8"& evenaregisteredshareholderofAIBcouldnotmaintainsuchanactionbaseduponthe ($( allegationssetforthinthefirstamendedcomplaint. *%* 0Thus,thisCourtfindsitselfintheunenviablepositionofhavingtointerpreta  criticalpointofIrishcorporationlawintheabsenceofanydirectauthorityfromtheIrishcourts. | TheonlycasecitedtotheCourtthatactuallydealswiththestatusofholdersofAmerican H depositaryreceiptsisthatofBatchelderv.Kawamoto,etal.,147F.3d915(CA91998),in  d whichaUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsappliedJapaneselawtodenyshareholderstandingto  0 holdersofAmericandepositaryreceiptsinHonda,JapanbecauseJapaneselawlimitedtheright    tobringshareholderactionstoregisteredshareholders.Id.,147F.3dat921. x  1AstheCourtindicatedearlier,plaintiffhasconstructedawellreasonedargument D  astohowandwhyanIrishcourtshouldextendwhateverrightsregisteredshareholdershaveto ` sueacompanyderivativelytobeneficialownersofshares,suchasholdersofAmerican , depositaryreceipts,inordertocomportwiththerealitiesofmoderncommerciallifeand  practice.ButitisnotthefunctionofthisCourttopredictthedirectioninwhichIrishcourtsmay t headinthefuturewhenpresentedwithanappropriatecaseofthisnature.  2 '  3     :jint  Rather,itisthe @ obligationofthisCourt,underthechoiceoflawprincipleshereinstated,tointerpretthe  \ corporatelawofIrelandasitexiststoday.Undertakingthatseriousresponsibility,theCourtis ( unabletofindanybasisinthedepositagreementorinIrishcaselaworstatutestosupportthe  rightofabeneficialownersuchasTomrantobringaderivativeactionagainstAIB.Eventhe p!  limitedauthoritypresentedintheolderEnglishcasesisnotdirectlyappositetothesituation <#"  0 1  0 10 1  presentedhere.FacedwithapaucityofprecedentandconfrontedbyanIrishlegalsystemthatis  clearlymorerestrictiveoftherightsofshareholdersthanourAmericansystem,thisCourtis | unwillingtoholdthatTomranhasestablisheditsstandingtobringthisactionagainstAIB. H Giventhisconclusion,itisunnecessarytodeterminewhetherplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%s  d allegationssatisfythe$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%fraudontheminority$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀexceptiontotheruleinFossv.Harbottle.This  4 Court,however,sharesMr.Ashe$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sviewthatitisunlikelythatthebaldallegationscontainedin    paragraphs26through28ofthefirstamendedcomplaintwouldsatisfyanIrishcourtthatthe   $X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%fraudontheminority$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀexceptiontotheFossv.Harbottlerulehasbeenpledadequatelyinthis P  case.Moreover,thetworecentIrishSupremeCourtcasescitedbythepartieswhichaddress  p derivativesuitslendlittlesupporttothenotionthatIrelandislikelyanytimesoontoexpandthe < rightsofcorporateshareholders.BothChiefJusticeKeane$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sopinioninCrindlev.Wymes,  (1998)2I.L.R.M275(Ir.S.C.)andthatofJusticeO$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%FlahertyinO$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Neillv.Ryan,(1993)I.L.R.M.  557(Ir.S.C.)adheretothehighlyrestrictiveviewofshareholderrightsembracedwithintherule X inFossv.Harbottlein1843.IndeedinO$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Neill,JusticeO$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Flahertystatesthat$X%XXXxYAXxYXX$X%Thebasictheme $t ofFossv.Harbottle(19843)2Hare461isthatwhereawronghasbeendonetoacompanyitis D forthecompanyitselftoseekredressfortheinjurydonetoit,thoughinappropriate  circumstancesaderivativeclaimbyaminorityshareholdermaybeallowed.$X%XXXxY@XxYXX$X%ԀHegoesontocite !  withapprovallanguagefromPrudentialAssuranceCo.,Ltd.v.NewmanIndus.,Ltd.(No.2) \#" (1982)Ch204at224asfollows: (%x $  Thisisnotmerelyatiresomeproceduralobstacleplaced &D"& inthepathofashareholderbyalegalisticjudiciary.The '*#' ruleisaconsequenceofthefactthatacorporationisa ($( separatelegalentity.Otherconsequencesarelimited )$) liabilityandlimitedrights.Thecompanyisliableforits *%* contractsandtorts;theshareholderhasnosuchliability. r+&+ Thecompanyacquirescausesofactionforbreachesof  contractandfortortswhichdamagethecompany.No  causeofactionvestsintheshareholder.Whenthe | 3shareholderacquiresashareheacceptsthefactthatthe b valueofhisinvestmentfollowsthefortuneofthe H companyandthathecanonlyexercisehisinfluence . ~ overthefortunesofthecompanybytheexerciseofhis  d votingrightsingeneralmeeting.(Emphasisadded)The  J lawconfersonhimtherighttoensurethatthecompany  0 observesthelimitationsofitsmemorandumofassociation    andtherighttoensurethatothershareholdersobserve    therule,imposedonthembythearticlesof   association. x    Nothingintheabovequotedlanguageorinthetextofeitherofthosedecisions D  suggesttothisCourtthatIrelandisabouttopermitdoubleortriplederivativeactionsbyeven ` registeredshareholders.Thus,Tomranisunabletoovercomeanyofthelegalobstaclesinits , pathtotrialinthisCourt.  " "  XE.` hp x (#X(#E  E.` hp x (#X(#E 2  5  .3      DeclaratoryJudgmentandInjunction ݌ t Ќ X' X(#X(#'   Plaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%srequestforadeclaratoryjudgmentandaninjunctionregardingthe @ December1998transactionwherebyAllfirstaltereditscharterfromanationalbanking ` associationtoaMarylandcharteredbank,assetforthinCountIIIofthefirstamended , complaint,isrenderedmootbytheCourt$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%sdeterminationthatplaintifflacksstandingtobring  thisaction. x!    h򀀀 &,"& ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. '#' Judge (#( December30,2002 )$)  h  XE.` hp x (#X(#Ecc:  CyrilV.Smith,Esquire Z+&+ 3  3 3   XE.` hp x (#X(#E XCharlesJ.Piven,Esquire  MarshallN.Perkins,Esquire |  X X4AndrewJ.Graham,Esquire H  X XJamesMathias,Esquire  d  X XRobertB.Mazur,Esquire  0 MichaelW.Schwartz,Esquire    JohnF.Lynch,Esquire     X XMarkGately,Esquire x   ^   D   X hE.` hp x (#X(#E *z   `  F  ,        t  Z  @  &v   \  B  (         p!   V"!  <#"  "$r#  %X $ TOMRAN,INC.    h   *  INTHE %>!%   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT ' #'   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#Ev.   `     h   *  FOR )$)   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EWILLIAMM.PASSANO,JR.,etal. h *  BALTIMORECITY R+&+ 4  4 4   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EDefendants    h   *  Part20    hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  CaseNo.:24C02002561 b  `  hE.` hp x (#X(#E H  ` * . ~  ******************************************************************************  d   Ӏ ORDER   J    Uponconsiderationofdefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁmotionstodismissthefirstamended    complaint,theplaintiff$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%soppositiontheretoandthememorandaoflawsubmittedbycounselfor   therespectiveparties,aswellastheargumentspresentedinopencourtonNovember22,2002,it f  isthis30thdayofDecember,2002,bytheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCity,Part20 2   ORDERED thatthedefendants$X%XXXxY=XxYXX$X%Ԁmotionstodismissthefirstamendedcomplaint N are GRANTED forthereasonsmorefullysetforthintheaccompanyingmemorandumand  opinionofthisdate.    h򀀀 N ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR. 4 Judge   h  XE.` hp x (#X(#Ecc:  CyrilV.Smith,Esquire     XE.` hp x (#X(#E XCharlesJ.Piven,Esquire b"! MarshallN.Perkins,Esquire H#"  X XAndrewJ.Graham,Esquire %d $  X X5JamesMathias,Esquire &0"&  X XRobertB.Mazur,Esquire (#( MichaelW.Schwartz,Esquire )$) JohnF.Lynch,Esquire x*%*  X ^+&+ 5 5 5  XMarkGately,Esquire     X06XXxY