context: . There is no question that Texas law governs whether the State Court Claims are derivative or direct claims.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 826 F.2d 347, 349
citation_a.parenthetical: "State law determines whether a shareholder may maintain a nonderivative action."
citation_a.sentence: Crocker v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 826 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir.1987) (“State law determines whether a shareholder may maintain a nonderivative action.”); see also In re Blanton, 105 B.R. 811, 821 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1989) (holding that where the entity was incorporated in Texas, and the shareholders reside in Texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in Texas, Texas law — not Arizona law — should be applied).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 105 B.R. 811, 821
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that where the entity was incorporated in Texas, and the shareholders reside in Texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in Texas, Texas law -- not Arizona law -- should be applied
citation_b.sentence: Crocker v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 826 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir.1987) (“State law determines whether a shareholder may maintain a nonderivative action.”); see also In re Blanton, 105 B.R. 811, 821 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1989) (holding that where the entity was incorporated in Texas, and the shareholders reside in Texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in Texas, Texas law — not Arizona law — should be applied).