Batchelder v. Kawamoto Appellees' Brief - Greines, Martin, Stein ...

shares in corporation on behalf of which suit brought); see Brown v.
Tenney, 155 Ill.App.3d 605, 608, 508 N.E.2d 347, 350 (1988) (holding
California does not allow double derivative suits, citing Gaillard), afd,
125 111.2d 348, 532 N.E.2d 270 (1988).
Once the lawsuit is stripped of plaintiffs impermissible claims against
all but Honda Japan's directors, California has no substantial interest in
the outcome of this litigation.
Plaintiff does not and cannot cite any authority that would suggest that
the duties of a parent company's directors towards its subsidiary are
measured by the laws of the subsidiary's state of incorporation.
Permitting plaintiff to assert claims on behalf of American Honda would
impermissibly expand the statutorily-restricted categories of proper derivative
defendants specified by Japanese law. As the Kostolany court observed: "This
court's duty is to apply existing, not to develop new, Dutch law." Kostolany v.
Davis, 1995 Del. Ch. LEXIS 135, at "10.