does not constitute a disqualifying interest. See Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 939 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1991). However, director compensation might be relevant if the investment adviser has the power to set, or even influence, the level of compensation received by the directors or remove them from office. See Verkouteren v. Blackrock Fin. Management, Inc., 37 F.Supp.2d 256, 259 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd 208 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.2000) (table). Second, allegations that non-employee directors failed to resist a course of action suggested by the investment adviser which prejudiced the funds’ shareholders might serve as evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. Id. However, an allegation is insufficient if it “more plausibly suggests a dereliction of du 500491, at *21 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1995) (<HOLDING>) One court took a more jaundiced view of
holding that in litigation arising from a product related injury in the forum state there are significant differences between the exercise of jurisdiction over a retailer who simply sold the product locally and the exercise of jurisdiction over a manufacturer whose products were sold over a large area holding over holding that the plaintiff had constitutional standing because he received over fifty calls over three months from an automated caller holding that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the will contest due to sisters failure to tender a proper summons to interested parties holding that directors who sat on over fifteen boards and received over 50000 in compensation were not interested