for the complete release of all liability of the Defendants who have caused great harm to the Company. It also requires the Company to pay $1 million out of its own pocket, to the detriment of current shareholders, to Plaintiffs' counsel.” In this language, Lapiner objects to the proposed settlement and release of Isramco’s claims against the Defendants, allegedly in exchange for no real benefit to Isramco and with a payment of one million dollars to Plaintiffs' counsel. Lapiner does not object to the Purported Discharge of Shareholder Claims, and the detriment of which he com plains is based on the shareholders’ ownership of shares in a company that paid one million dollars for a settlement that allegedly brought no benefit to the compan tion, 705 A.2d 238, 239-41 (Del.Ch.1997) (<HOLDING>); Carlton Investments v. TLC Beatrice Int’l
holding that in rendering judgment following the settlement of a derivative action that did not involve a class action trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment that would adjudicate rights and personal claims of individual shareholders who were not parties to derivative action that was being settled holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law holding res judicata barred plaintiffs derivative suit because of a final judgment in a prior derivative lawsuit recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action