News Summary
The New York Court of Appeals has upheld the internal affairs doctrine, emphasizing its role in corporate governance and shareholder disputes. This ruling clarifies that New York law will defer to the law of the state of incorporation, enhancing predictability for foreign corporations. The decision stemmed from Ezrasons, Inc. v. Rudd, rejecting arguments that New York BCL sections granted standing to beneficial owners. The ruling underscores the significance of the internal affairs doctrine, a longstanding principle in corporate law, preserving jurisdictional respect.
New York, NY – The New York Court of Appeals has reinforced the significance of the internal affairs doctrine in corporate governance, ruling that the doctrine governs shareholder disputes and applies the law of the place of incorporation. This decision emerged from the case of Ezrasons, Inc. v. Rudd, which was decided on May 20, 2025.
The court determined that New York’s Business Corporation Law (BCL) Sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2) do not supersede the internal affairs doctrine. This ruling provides clarity and confidence for foreign corporations, ensuring that New York courts will uphold the legal principles of the state where a corporation is incorporated in matters concerning internal affairs.
Ezrasons, Inc., a company claiming beneficial ownership of shares in Barclays PLC, initiated a shareholder derivative action against the bank’s directors and officers. The case was based on allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties under English law, where Barclays is incorporated. However, the primary contention of the defendants, including Barclays Capital Inc., a New York affiliate, was that Ezrasons did not possess the standing to sue. According to English law, only registered shareholders have the right to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a corporation; beneficial owners do not qualify.
Ezrasons argued that New York BCL sections should grant it standing in the case, regardless of the implications of foreign law. This argument was ultimately rejected by both the New York Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, which ruled in favor of the defendants and confirmed the dismissal of the case. The New York Court of Appeals further upheld this dismissal, referencing its earlier ruling in the case of Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC., underscoring the internal affairs doctrine’s function as a choice-of-law principle.
The court’s ruling points to the longstanding application of the internal affairs doctrine, a judicially created rule established to provide predictability and uphold the jurisdictional expectations of stakeholders involved in corporate governance. This principle has been recognized throughout legal history, with precedents dating back to 1866 reinforcing its importance.
The internal affairs doctrine allows for the current laws of the state of incorporation to apply in civil disputes among shareholders and corporate management. The court indicated that while the internal affairs doctrine holds significant weight, it can only be overridden by clear legislative intent—something the court found lacking in the BCL provisions. For example, although Section 626(a) allows actions by shareholders or beneficial owners under specific conditions, it does not deliver an explicit choice-of-law directive. Similarly, Section 1319(a)(2) extends parts of the BCL to foreign corporations operating in New York but does not contain clear language nullifying the application of foreign law.
A dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Wilson highlighted concerns over whether earlier legislative drafts had adequately considered the existence of a common law choice-of-law doctrine. Nevertheless, the majority opinion emphasized that the ruling enhances predictability for foreign corporations in New York regarding shareholder standing in derivative actions, thus protecting the legal rights of such entities.
In summary, the New York Court of Appeals’ recent ruling clarifies the position of the internal affairs doctrine within corporate governance, affirming its applicability and reinforcing the jurisdictional respect expected in governance matters. This will notably impact foreign corporations by ensuring that their internal governance disputes will be adjudicated according to the law of their incorporation, rather than by local statutes that may conflict with that law. As such, this ruling effectively sustains the stability and predictability that corporations seek in their legal frameworks.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
HERE Resources
Metropolitan Commercial Bank’s CEO Pay Package Rejected by Shareholders
New York State Approves Historic $254 Billion Budget
New York State Passes Controversial $254 Billion Budget
Seaport Entertainment’s CEO Tax Gross-Up Sparks Controversy
New York Governor Hochul Unveils $254 Billion Budget Deal
Kohl’s CEO Ashley Buchanan Fired Over Romantic Scandal
Dow Jones News Fund Selects 33 Interns for Business Journalism
Additional Resources
- National Law Review: New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms Internal Affairs Doctrine
- Wikipedia: Internal Affairs Doctrine
- National Law Review: Ezrasons, Inc. v. Rudd – Shareholder Derivative Action
- Google Search: Corporate Governance
- National Law Review: Business Corporation Law in New York
- Encyclopedia Britannica: Corporate Governance
- National Law Review: Fiduciary Duties of Directors and Officers
- Google News: Shareholder Disputes
- National Law Review: Judicial Review of Corporate Governance
- Google Scholar: Internal Affairs Doctrine
