In Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a shareholder who filed a derivative suit against Hilton Hotels Corporation and its directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws by making false statements in proxy solicitations. The plaintiff was an immigrant with limited English proficiency and had signed the complaint prepared by her attorney without fully understanding it. The lower courts dismissed the case on grounds that she did not adequately understand or control litigation initiated under her name, thus failing to meet procedural requirements for such suits. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that these technicalities should not prevent shareholders from seeking redress when corporate management allegedly engages in fraudulent activities detrimental to their interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow Mrs. Surowitz to proceed with her derivative suit was a departure from established legal principles and could potentially open floodgates of litigation by uninformed stockholders who are manipulated by lawyers seeking personal gain. He emphasized that Rule 23(b) requires plaintiffs in derivative suits to adequately represent the interests of other shareholders, which he believed Mrs. Surowitz was incapable of doing due to her lack of understanding about the case or its underlying facts - she couldn't even read English, let alone understand complex financial transactions involved in this lawsuit against Hilton Hotels Corporation and others for alleged fraudulent proxy solicitation under SEC rules.