The shareholder alleged that Monster directors and officers didn’t ensure compliance with antidiscrimination laws and misrepresented the energy drink company’s commitment to inclusion. But the shareholder didn’t demonstrate that making a required pre-suit demand on Monster’s board would have been futile and was thus excused, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said.
The complaint challenged the lack of diversity on Monster’s ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.