With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". released, relinquished and discharged” claims against defendants and related persons, and that they are “barred and enjoined from instituting and/or prosecuting any other action against” those persons asserting those claims. The parties have not addressed whether the judgment binds all those who hold Isramco shares on the yet-to-occur effective date of the settlement, or only those who held shares on the August 15, 2011 date prescribed in the notice approved by the trial court. Either way, it is undisputed that Lapiner bought his shares before August 15, 2011, so he is expressly bound by the judgment. More generally, courts and commentators recognize that judgments in derivative suits bind non-intervening shareholders. See Smith v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 407 F.3d 381, 386 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Nathan v. Rowan, 651 F.2d 1223, 1226 (6th

A: holding res judicata barred plaintiffs derivative suit because of a final judgment in a prior derivative lawsuit
B: holding that former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by unions prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit as a former union member was not in privity with the union and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit
C: holding that an injured former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata where he never authorized the union to represent his interest in a previous lawsuit over the same benefits
D: holding that in rendering judgment following the settlement of a derivative action that did not involve a class action trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment that would adjudicate rights and personal claims of individual shareholders who were not parties to derivative action that was being settled
A.