that a shareholder who has made a prior demand on the board may not assert thereafter as a grounds for the boards wrongful refusal of the demand that the board lacks independence or is motivated by self interest. Relying on this courts decision in Flocco, supra, appellees contend that it is improper for a shareholder to “bifurcate” his claim in this manner. In Flocco, this court held that a shareholder, who had grounded his derivative action on demand futility, had by making a demand on the corporate defendants after the trial court entered its order dismissing the complaint, waived his claim of demand futility and conceded the independence of a majority of the boards directors. 752 A.2d at 153. In Flocco, under choice of law principles, this court applied Illinois law. 752 A.2d at 151 (<HOLDING>). Again, applying Illinois law, this court
holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding that the viability of the derivative action is determined by law of illinois the state of incorporation holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court