Idaho Supreme Court Hears Micron Price-fixing Case

Orrock's lawsuit was filed as a derivative action, which allows a shareholder to sue company leaders or insiders on behalf of a corporation, claiming they failed to exercise their authority for the benefit of the company.

Normally, derivative lawsuits require that a shareholder first present the board with allegations and demand that board members take action. Orrock didn't present a demand to the board, so 4th District Judge Darla Williamson dismissed the suit.

On Friday, Orrock's attorney, Marc Umeda, told the Supreme Court he should be exempt from the requirement because he knew that asking the board to change would be futile. The board knew or should have known the price-fixing was occurring, Umeda said, and chose not to investigate, try to stop it or seek redress from those involved.

"Ninety-five percent of Micron's revenues came from DRAM. Stock prices went up and down based on the price of DRAM," Umeda said. "If your company is DRAM and you sit on the board of directors, I don't think it's too much to expect you to know what's going on with DRAM prices."

Barry Kaplan, the attorney representing the board of directors and the other defendants, said Orrock had nothing to back up his claim that the board knew about any price-fixing scheme.