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
 
View on Scribd
Back to document