will have' an opportunity to make the same argument that Deutch is trying to make here. In so holding, we are not convinced by Deutch’s. contentions that the state law derivative action will be inadequate to protect Cendant’s rights. Deutch asserts that a derivative action is not the functional equivalent of a contribution claim, but, as his counsel conceded at oral argument, the alleged damages in the derivative action are similar to those in a contribution claim. Deutch also argues that a state law derivative action plaintiff will face significant roadblocks to Cendant’s recovery from the directors for their fair share of liability. He first notes that a derivative action plaintiff will have to satisfy the demand requirement. See Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 811-12 (Del.1984) (<HOLDING>). This is a generally applicable requirement
recognizing that the demand requirement exists at the threshold first to insure that a stockholder exhaust his intracorporate remedies and then to provide a safeguard against strike suits holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the bia holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that a federal employee who had first filed a formal appeal with the board was required to exhaust his administrative remedies in that forum and could not move at will to the other track holding that a routine dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not count as a strike under  1915g