In a corporate governance dispute among shareholders and directors of closely held corporations, the individual plaintiffs moved for an order appointing independent counsel to oversee and control the corporate plaintiffs.
The applicants argued that independent counsel was necessary to represent the corporations’ interests where conflicts existed between shareholders and directors.
The court held that appointing independent counsel would add cost and delay while providing no practical benefit, particularly because the corporate claims had been stayed and any counsel would require instructions from directors who were defendants in the litigation.
The court concluded that such counsel would face an unavoidable conflict of interest and could not act effectively.
The motion was therefore dismissed.
