Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840; Spiegel, 571 A.2d at 773. 18 . See Del.Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327 (West 2014); Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a) (West 2014); Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840; Leighton v. Lewis, No. 471,1988, 1990 WL 84704, at *2-3 (Del. May 25, 1990) (precedential order). Unpublished orders of the Delaware Supreme Court are precedential. See Del. Sup.Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(B), 17 & cmt.; New Castle Cnty. v. Goodman, 461 A.2d 1012, 1013 (Del.1983). Under Delaware law, there is also a demand requirement, but that is not at issue in this appeal. See Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a) (West 2014); Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840. 19 . See Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327; Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a); Leighton, 1990 WL 84704, at *2-3. 20 . See Del.Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327; Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a); L pp.Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Saudi v. Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108, 113
holding that a persons lack of standing to institute or maintain a derivative action on behalf of a texas corporation deprives texas courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction and the proper procedure is to dismiss the derivative action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that a shareholder who disposes of his shares loses standing to bring a derivative action no longer a shareholder in the corporation the defendant cannot maintain a derivative action on its behalf holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction