as to taint the director’s judgment. See, e.g., Khanna v. McMinn, C.A. No. 20545-NC, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 86, 2006 WL 1388744, at *17 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2006) (finding no lack of independence where Complaint alleged that director also sat on the board of a software vendor that received over $2.2 million in revenue from the subject corporation, as plaintiffs failed to allege that $2.2 million was material to the vendor or that the transaction might otherwise have influenced the director’s decisions); White v. Panic, 793 A.2d 356, 366 (Del.Ch.2000) (rejecting claim of director’s lack of independence where the plaintiff did not allege particular facts indicating that $33,440 allegedly paid to director or his firm was so material as to taint the director’s judgment); Disney, 731 A.2d at 360 (<HOLDING>). Here, the Court cannot ascertain whether the
holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original holding that the attempt to remove  a director by written consent of the board is invalid recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing holding that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that a defendant director was not disinterested on account of his business relationship with the company whose board he sat on because he was a man of comparatively modest means holding that allegation that company paid a director 50000 in consulting fees was not enough to demonstrate that the director lacked independence as plaintiffs had failed to allege that 50000 was material to the director