participated in or approved the alleged wrongdoing, ... or are otherwise financially interested in the challenged transactions ....”) (citation omitted). Pleadings in derivative suits are governed by Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23.1. Bazata v. National Ins. Co. of Washington, 400 A.2d 313, 315-16 (D.C.1979). With respect to the assertion of the demand requirement or its futility, Rule 23.1 provides, in pertinent part: The complaint [in a shareholder derivative action] shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, an ll depend upon the substantive law defining these elements. See Kamen, supra, 500 U.S. at 97, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (<HOLDING>). The substantive law governing the powers of a
holding that the contours of the demand requirement founded on federal statute are governed by that law holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law