of a corporation a claim belonging not to the shareholder, but to the corporation.” Levine v. Smith, 591 A.2d 194, 200 (Del.1991) (citing Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 811 (Del. 1984)). Because “the decision to bring a law suit or to refrain from litigating a claim on behalf of a corporation is a decision concerning the management of the corporation,” Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767, 773 (Del.1990), the decision belongs to the General Partner. Thus, a limited partner may bring an action to recover a judgment in favor of the partnership if the general partner has refused to do so “or if an effort to cause those general partners to bring the action is not likely to succeed.” Del.Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 17-1003 (2006); see also Laties v. Wise, 2005 WL 3501709, at *1 (DeLCh. Dec. 14, 2005) (<HOLDING>). The question of standing to bring a
holding shareholder lacks standing under delaware law to maintain such a claim unless he first exhausts all intracorporate remedies by making a demand on the board of directors to obtain the action desired or by pleading with particularity why demand should be excused holding that agency demand letters are not suits holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation holding that rule 231 does not apply to an action brought by a shareholder under  36b of the investment company act and that a plaintiff in such case need not make a demand before bringing suit holding that in order to maintain a derivative cause of action a shareholder must maintain a continuous ownership interest in the corporation