to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1. The Supreme Court in Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox discussed the origin of the Rule as having been its 1882 decision in Hawes v. City of Oakland, 104 U.S. 450, 14 Otto 450, 26 L.Ed. 827 (1882), in which the Court established prerequisites to bringing shareholder derivative suits in federal court in an effort to curb the potential for abuse that arose from such suits, which the courts had been commonly entertaining under their equity powers. Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523, 530, 542, 104 S.Ct. 831, 78 L.Ed.2d 645 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The prerequisites, which were ultimately
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act holding that a plaintiff was not obligated to apply for a certificate of convenience and necessity and submit to the administrative procedures incident thereto before bringing an action 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 the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the park system resource protection act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act