## Facts

- A Hilton Hotels Corporation shareholder filed a derivative action alleging that corporate officers and directors used illegal schemes to defraud the corporation of millions of dollars.
- The complaint alleged two primary fraud schemes: (1) a repurchase program in which shares were sold back to the corporation at an allegedly manipulated, inflated price, reducing working capital by more than $8 million; and (2) a transaction in which Hilton Hotels allegedly bought Hilton Credit Corporation shares at an inflated price, with over $2 million allegedly received personally by defendants.
- The complaint asserted violations of federal securities laws and Delaware corporate law.
- The pleading was signed by counsel under Rule 11 and verified by the shareholder as true in part and, as to other allegations, true “on information and belief.”
- In an examination by defense counsel, the shareholder—an immigrant with limited English and little formal education—showed she did not understand the complaint’s details and had relied on her son-in-law and counsel.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the verification was a sham and the plaintiff was not a proper derivative plaintiff; plaintiff submitted affidavits describing a substantial pre-filing investigation by counsel and a financial advisor.
- The district court dismissed the action with prejudice as a “false and sham” verification; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 23(b)’s verification requirement permits dismissal of a shareholder derivative complaint when the shareholder does not personally understand or independently know all allegations but relies in good faith on counsel and an advisor who investigated the claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Rule 23(b) did not require dismissal of a derivative action supported by reasonable beliefs grounded in careful investigation, merely because the verifying shareholder lacked sophistication or detailed personal knowledge.
- The Court concluded the record did not show a “strike suit,” but a good-faith effort by a small shareholder relying on professional assistance.
- The Court emphasized the significance of counsel’s Rule 11 certification and the affidavits demonstrating an extensive investigation.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)’s verification requirement is aimed at discouraging bad-faith “strike suits,” not barring derivative actions that present serious fraud allegations supported by reasonable, investigated beliefs.
- A derivative plaintiff need not personally master complex factual and legal details to verify a complaint, so long as the plaintiff acts in good faith and the allegations rest on a substantial investigation.
- Courts should construe the Federal Rules to favor adjudication on the merits rather than technical dismissals where the record indicates well-grounded fraud claims and bona fide reliance on counsel and advisors.

## Conclusion

A shareholder derivative action may proceed despite the plaintiff’s limited personal understanding of the complaint when the plaintiff verifies in good faith based on information and belief and the allegations are supported by counsel’s Rule 11 certification and a careful pre-filing investigation; dismissal with prejudice on a “sham verification” theory was improper.


Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363 (1966)