opinion that this holding runs afoul of the general principle that boards of directors manage corporations. The settlement of any derivative suit (as opposed to its dismissal) is, by its very nature, a recognition that the board of directors’ authority over the conduct of corporate litigation has been displaced. See In re Crown Castle Int'l Corp., 247 S.W.3d 349, 355-56 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (“The derivative shareholder suit is an action in which the shareholder steps into the shoes of the corporation and usurps the board of directors' authority to decide whether to pursue the corporation’s claims."). 16 . The decision to strike Lapiner's intervention is appealable. See Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 657-58 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); City of Austin v. Quick, 930 S.W.2d 678, 683
holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend