*680After careful consideration of Respondents' petition for rehearing, the Court grants the petition for rehearing, dispenses with further briefing, and substitutes the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter.
/s/ Donald W. Beatty, C.J.
**218/s/ John W. Kittredge, J.
/s/ Kaye G. Hearn, J.
/s/ John Cannon Few, J.
/s/ George C. James, Jr., J.
This case involves the South Carolina Home Builders Self Insurers Fund (Fund), which was created by the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, Inc. "for the purpose of meeting and fulfilling an employer's obligations and liabilities under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act." The Fund at issue here was established in September 1995 by an "Agreement and Declaration of Trust" (Agreement) between the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, Inc. (Association) and the Fund's Board of Trustees (Board). The underlying dispute arose after the Board announced plans to wind down the Fund and use the Fund's remaining assets to finance a new mutual insurance company. Petitioners, who were members of the Fund, disagreed with that decision and challenged the Board's authority to use the Fund's assets in such a way. The trial court twice dismissed Petitioners' suit, first on the basis that it involved the internal affairs of a trust and therefore should have been filed in probate court, then in a subsequent proceeding, on the basis that the lawsuit was a shareholder derivative action and that the complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), SCRCP.
On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners' complaint, finding the trial court properly concluded (1) the Fund was not a trust; (2) Petitioners' claims were derivative in nature; and (3) Petitioners' complaint was properly dismissed as it did not properly allege a pre-suit demand as required by Rule 23(b)(1). Patterson v. Witter , 418 S.C. 66, 791 S.E.2d 294 (Ct. App. 2016). We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. We reverse and remand, for Petitioners have satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), irrespective of whether the Fund is properly characterized as a trust.
**219I.
All employers conducting business in South Carolina must secure the payment of compensation to their injured employees. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-5-10 (2015). This may be accomplished either by purchasing workers' compensation liability insurance or by qualifying as a "self-insured" employer. To become self-insured, an employer must demonstrate to the Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) that it has the "financial ability to pay directly the compensation in the amount and manner and when due as provided" by the Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-5-20 (2015).
The Act also allows employers to create a self-insured workers' compensation liability fund or "pool." Id . § 42-5-20 ("The [C]omission may, under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, permit two or more employers in businesses of a similar nature to enter into agreements to pool their liabilities under the Workers' Compensation Law for the purpose of qualifying as self-insurers."). For a self-insurance fund to be approved, an officer of the proposed organization must submit to the Commission various documents, financial statements, and notably, "[a]n indemnity agreement which jointly and severally binds each member of the fund, signed by each proposed member." S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-1501(E)(1)-(8) (2012).1 A self-insured fund must be approved by the Commission *681before it may begin operation. Id . § 67-1502 (2012).
The Agreement identified its purpose as:
meeting and fulfilling an employer's obligations and liabilities under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act; to form an overall self-insurers fund pursuant to Laws of the State of South Carolina, which provides for workers' compensation coverage and benefits; to provide, as appropriate, allowable advance discounts on premium payments made by employers for workers' compensation coverage; and to minimize the cost of providing workers' compensation coverage by developing and refining specialized claim services **220and a loss prevention program within the South Carolina Home Building Industry.
(emphasis added).
In addition to establishing the authority of Board members and extensive guidelines for the administration of the Fund, the Agreement further provided that amendments to the Agreement may be made by a majority of the Board, "However, this Agreement may not be amended so as to change its purpose as set forth [above] or to permit the diversion or application of any of the funds of the [Fund ] for any purpose other than those specified herein ." (emphasis added). The Agreement also provided that "In the event of termination, the remaining funds available in the [Fund], after providing for all outstanding obligations, shall be distributed, through a formula determined by the [Board], to the participating members."
In the fall of 2003, the Board began discussing the idea of winding down the Fund and using the remaining monies on hand to capitalize a mutual insurance company, presumably to be comprised of the members of the Fund. Over the next several years, the Board continued to explore this "conversion" with the Association, the Commission, and the Department of Insurance (DOI); the two biggest challenges were identified as accumulating the $5 million necessary for the mutual insurance company's starting capital reserve and upgrading the Fund's existing computer systems to enable compliance with DOI's regulatory requirements.
In furtherance of the plan to create a mutual insurance company, the Board authorized expenditures from the Fund to purchase a custom computer software program; purchase office space costing $1.6 million; include "operations of the insurance company" in the scope of its directors and officers insurance coverage; and to subscribe to a national workers' compensation insurance-rating and data-collection bureau.
In May 2011, the Board notified the Commission it planned to cease accepting new members into the Fund effective July 1, 2011, and planned to withdraw the Fund from the self-insured program effective January 1, 2012. The Board also sought and received "approval" from the Commission to use $5 million in Fund assets to capitalize the reserve fund for the **221mutual insurance company; however, this "approval" included no evaluation of whether this use of Fund monies complied with the terms of the Agreement. Indeed, the director of the self-insurance division of the Commission wrote to the Fund's administrator:
In response to your request[,] we have approved the release of $5 million in non-pledged assets of the SC Home Builders Self-Insurers Fund to be used solely to capitalize the SC Builders Insurance Group, Inc., in conjunction with the closure of the self-insured [F]und. It is understood that the [F]und will cease accepting new members effective July 1, 2011[,] and will become no longer self-insured for workers' compensation in South Carolina effective January 1, 2012. The outstanding liabilities of the [F ]und at the time of closure, January 1, 2012, will remain the responsibility of the self-insured [F ]und and its membership under joint and several liability . The [F]und is required to provide a final audited financial statement following closure and will continue to provide the Commission[']s Form 11, Fund Quarterly Financial Report, until further notice. The [F]und will also be required to comply with Self-Insurance Tax and Second Injury Fund Assessment requirements following the [F]und[']s closure.
Petitioners are members of the Fund who, in February 2012, filed suit against the Fund, *682the Board, and the individual members of the Board (collectively, Respondents). Petitioners alleged breach of fiduciary duty; breach of trust; breach of contract; and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. Petitioners alleged that the Board committed ultra vires acts in breach of its fiduciary duties by removing more than $5 million from the Fund to establish the mutual insurance company-monies which should have been returned to the Fund's members under the terms of the Agreement. Petitioners also alleged that in addition to not receiving their share of the $5 million paid-in surplus, they have suffered or will individually suffer additional tax consequences and additional liability exposure to cover the Fund's obligations. Petitioners alleged that all improper expenditures should be reimbursed to the Fund to reduce the amounts for which Fund members might ultimately be jointly and severally liable. Additionally, **222Petitioners sought an accounting and a declaration that Fund assets could not be used for the purpose of establishing a mutual insurance company.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting eight separate bases for dismissal, including (1) the circuit court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint involved the internal affairs of a trust, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court;2 and (2) that the action was derivative in nature and did not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), SCRCP.3 Respondents' motions sought protection from responding to Petitioners' discovery requests during the pendency of the motions; incorporated by reference an affidavit of the Fund's administrator, to which twelve separate exhibits were attached; and stated "the Court will be asked, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, to consider matters outside of the Complaint and treat the motion as one for summary judgment."
On September 4, 2012, a hearing was held on Respondents' motions to dismiss, during which the circuit court indicated it was inclined to dismiss the complaint based on the probate court's exclusive jurisdiction of the internal affairs of trusts and requested proposed orders. On January 30, 2013, after the hearing but before the circuit court issued its written order, Petitioners sent a written demand letter to Respondents' counsel itemizing specific requests:
In particular, our clients believe the following actions are necessary and should be taken on behalf of the [F]und:
**2231. The $5,000,000 which was taken out of the [F]und as excess funds to establish a competing mutual fund should be distributed immediately to the beneficiaries of the Trust as it is not needed for the operation of the South Carolina Builders Self Insurers Fund.
2. An accounting should be made of all remaining funds in custody of the South Carolina Home Builders Self Insurers Fund. All funds not necessary to insure liability should be distributed to members of the Trust.
3. Elections have not been held as required by the Trust documents. Elections should be held for all positions of the Trustees.
4. The Trust should be dissolved as it appears in the Trustees' decision that a competing entity should be set up and that the Trust no longer serves its functions. As a result, the Trust should be dissolved with requisite amounts kept on hand to insure against future liabilities with the remaining assets distributed to members of the Trust.
*6835. All assets contemplated for use by the Mutual Fund and purchased with that intent should be sold with the proceeds to be distributed to beneficiaries of the Trust.
The letter also stated:
[We] believe previous correspondence in the lawsuit set forth the basis for these requests of the Trust. We are just sending this to you to make clear to you that under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure we are asking that these actions be taken. [We] believe these requests have already been made to you as well as your clients. It is our understanding that your clients have refused to take these actions.
If your clients' position is any different, please let [us] know so we can discuss this matter. If [we] do not hear from you regarding this, [we] will assume your clients refuse to take the actions as requested above, and we will take appropriate action.
Respondents did not immediately respond.
On March 5, 2013, the circuit court issued a written order of dismissal finding "[i]t is clear from the documents submitted **224to the Court that this dispute concerns a trust" and concluding the circuit court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Plaintiffs to refile their complaint in Probate Court and subsequently remove the re-filed matter back to circuit court.4
Still having received no response to their January 30, 2013 letter, Petitioners refiled their lawsuit in probate court on April 9, 2013, alleging the same causes of action and including a new paragraph, which stated:
8. To the extent required by South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs allege:
a. The Plaintiffs were beneficiaries of the trust at all times relevant including when the transactions complained of were made.
b. The Plaintiffs, their agents or others on their behalf have made efforts to obtain the action they desire in this matter including correspondence to counsel for the Defendants, meetings with counsel for the Defendants, correspondence to the Trust and a previous lawsuit to no avail.
The re-filed suit was removed to circuit court.
Respondents moved to dismiss this second complaint, alleging, among other things, that the lawsuit did not involve a trust but rather was a shareholder derivative action and that the complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and therefore should be dismissed; Respondents submitted an affidavit in support of their motion.5
**225Ultimately, the circuit court dismissed Petitioners' complaint, finding the Fund was an unincorporated association, not a trust, and that the complaint was therefore subject to Rule 23(b)(1). The circuit court held that the complaint failed to comply with Rule 23(b)(1). Petitioners then filed a Rule 59(e) motion, arguing the pre-suit demand was properly made and that the trial court's order elevated form over substance. In their motion, Petitioners also sought to supplement or amend their pleadings if more detailed pleadings were required. The circuit court denied this motion.
On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, finding the circuit court properly concluded (1) the Fund was an unincorporated association and not a trust; (2) Petitioners' claims were derivative in nature; and (3) Petitioners'
*684complaint was properly dismissed as it did not properly allege a pre-suit demand as required by Rule 23(b)(1). Patterson v. Witter , 418 S.C. 66, 791 S.E.2d 294 (Ct. App. 2016). This Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision.
II.
"In reviewing the dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, the appellate court applies the same standard of review as the trial court." Doe v. Marion , 373 S.C. 390, 395, 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) (citation omitted). "In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court must base its ruling solely on allegations set forth in the complaint." Id . (citation omitted). "The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Id . at 395, 645 S.E.2d at 247-48 (quoting Gentry v. Yonce , 337 S.C. 1, 5, 522 S.E.2d 137, 139 (1999) ). "The complaint should not be dismissed merely because the court doubts the plaintiff will prevail in the action." Id . at 395, 645 S.E.2d at 248 (citation omitted).
In considering a motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), if "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Rule 12(b), SCRCP ; see also, e.g ., **226Brown v. James , 389 S.C. 41, 47 n.5, 697 S.E.2d 604, 607 n.5 (Ct. App. 2010) (citations omitted) (finding that the trial court's consideration of matters beyond the pleadings converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment). Because the parties submitted matters outside the pleadings that were not excluded by the court and certain factual findings in the circuit court's order exceeded the scope of the facts alleged in the complaint, we find this motion to dismiss was converted into a motion for summary judgment and we review it as such.
"[I]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact[, then] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), SCRCP. "In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences which can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Pye v. Estate of Fox , 369 S.C. 555, 563, 633 S.E.2d 505, 509 (2006) (citations omitted). "Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application of the law." USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg , 377 S.C. 643, 653, 661 S.E.2d 791, 796 (2008) (quoting Middleborough Horizontal Prop. Regime Council of Co-Owners v. Montedison S.p.A. , 320 S.C. 470, 479, 465 S.E.2d 765, 771 (Ct. App. 1995) ).
A. Unincorporated Association or Trust
The court of appeals found that although the Agreement, by its terms, purported to create a trust, the Fund possessed many characteristics typically associated with business corporations, and thus, the Fund was properly considered an unincorporated association for the purposes of the pre-suit demand and pleading requirements of Rule 23. Petitioners argue the court of appeals erred in categorizing the Fund as anything other than precisely what it purports to be-a trust-and therefore, Petitioners argue the pre-suit demand and pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) are inapplicable. Petitioners alternatively assert that in any event they satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1). On this latter point, we agree with Petitioners. Nevertheless, we address the dispute **227over the proper characterization of the Agreement and its impact on the applicability of Rule 23(b)(1).
In construing a trust agreement, "a court must resort first to the language of the instrument, and if the language is perfectly plain and capable of legal construction, the language determines the form and effect of the instrument." Germann v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. , 286 S.C. 34, 38, 331 S.E.2d 385, 388 (Ct. App. 1985) (citing Chiles v. Chiles , 270 S.C. 379, 242 S.E.2d 426 (1978) ). "If the intention of the settlor appears on the face of the *685agreement, then the court will effectuate it, unless it is in conflict with principles of law." Id . (citing Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Auman , 259 S.C. 263, 191 S.E.2d 511 (1972) ).
Despite this black-letter law, we acknowledge the truth in the court of appeals' observation that the Fund is, in many ways, dissimilar to a garden-variety trust. Patterson , 418 S.C. at 78-80, 791 S.E.2d at 301-02. Nevertheless, that dissimilarity is not dispositive. See Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee , 446 U.S. 458, 462-66, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980) (rejecting an argument that a business trust should be treated as an unincorporated association simply because it resembled a business association in several aspects, finding instead that the entity was an express trust, just as it purported to be, and that there was no basis for disregarding the trust's legal form). But many states permit (indeed, one state even requires6 ) workers' compensation self-insured funds to be organized as trusts.7 Also, it is common in many other states for **228fund participants to be subject to joint and several liability.8 **230The presence of joint and several liability among *686Fund members does not necessarily undermine a trust's identity as such; rather it is a function of the overriding policy concern of ensuring injured workers' claims are paid.
The Agreement resembles a trust in some respects, and it does not resemble a trust in other respects. However, the question of whether the Fund is a trust need not be resolved, for we elect to follow the precedent from other jurisdictions applying Rule 23(b)(1) to all actions which are derivative in nature, even if the entity in question is a *687trust. See, e.g ., Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v. Program Risk Mgmt., Inc. , 147 A.D.3d 122, 46 N.Y.S.3d 246, 255 (2017) (finding the "analysis applicable to derivative actions against corporations has been held to apply to trusts" and finding that the joint and several liability of workers' compensation group self-insured **231trust members "does not require us to set aside the legal distinction [ ] between derivative and direct claims"); see also In re Mortg. & Realty Tr. Sec. Litig. , 787 F.Supp. 84, 86 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (applying the Rule 23 demand requirement to a derivative action against the board of trustees of a real estate investment trust). The key inquiry is whether the underlying challenge is properly characterized as derivative in nature. Accordingly, the applicability of the pre-suit demand and pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) are to be determined not on the basis of whether the entity involved is or is not a trust, but rather, whether the claims at issue are direct or derivative. We turn now to that issue.
B. Direct or Derivative
Petitioners argue that the court of appeals erred in finding all of their claims were derivative in nature. Specifically, Petitioners allege that based on the joint and several liability the Act imposes upon members of the Fund, "the injury is to each beneficiary who must, individually, make up for any shortfall in trust assets." Based on this individual liability exposure, Petitioners argue their actions are direct rather than derivative. We agree in part and disagree in part, and we find Petitioners' complaint includes both direct and derivative claims.
"An action seeking to remedy a loss to the corporation is generally a derivative one." Brown v. Stewart , 348 S.C. 33, 49, 557 S.E.2d 676, 684 (Ct. App. 2001) (citation omitted). An action regarding the fiduciary obligation of a director is ordinarily enforceable through a derivative action. Id . (citation omitted). "A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation." Id . (citation omitted).
"If misconduct by the management of a corporation has caused a particular loss to an individual stockholder, the liability for the mismanagement is an asset of the individual stockholder." Id. (quoting Ward v. Griffin , 295 S.C. 219, 221, 367 S.E.2d 703, 703-04 (Ct. App. 1988) ). "Of course, a suit based on the misconduct can be brought by the individual stockholder." Id . at 49, 557 S.E.2d at 684-85 (quoting Ward , 295 S.C at 221, 367 S.E.2d at 703-04 ). "It becomes material, **232therefore, to inquire whether the acts of mismanagement charged to the directors affected the plaintiffs directly , or as their interests were submerged in the corporation whose assets were thus dissipated." Id . at 49, 557 S.E.2d at 685 (quoting Stewart v. Ficken , 151 S.C. 424, 427, 149 S.E. 164, 165 (1929) ).
"Specifically, to distinguish a derivative claim from a direct one, the court considers: (1) who suffered the alleged harm, the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually, and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy, the corporation or the stockholders individually." 19 Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 1923 (2015). Direct and derivative claims may be brought simultaneously. 19 Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 1922 (2015). "When determining whether a claim is derivative or direct, some injuries affect both the corporation and the stockholders; if this dual aspect is present, a plaintiff can choose to sue individually." Id . (citing Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Techs., Inc ., 65 A.3d 618 (Del. Ch. 2013) ); see also Horizon House-Microwave, Inc. v. Bazzy , 21 Mass.App.Ct. 190, 486 N.E.2d 70, 74 (1985) (observing a shareholder may pursue both direct and derivative claims in a single action).
In evaluating Petitioners' claims in the underlying complaint, the court of appeals found:
In the instant case, [Petitioners] allege the Board's decision to remove $5 million from the Fund harmed the Fund's ability to adequately cover its risks. Thus, the action is premised on the alleged harm to the overall Fund, not to individual members. Accordingly, we find the circuit court correctly held [Petitioners'] claims were derivative and subject to the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1).
*688Patterson , 418 S.C. at 81, 791 S.E.2d at 302 (citations omitted).
While we agree with the court of appeals that Petitioners' claim that the removal of the $5 million impacted the Fund's ability to cover its risk is derivative in nature, this claim is by no means the only claim asserted in the complaint. Indeed, the court of appeals overlooked various other causes of action and forms of relief requested in the complaint.
Though discovery has not been conducted, one or more of Petitioners' additional claims may be direct in nature. We thus find the court of appeals erred in concluding that the complaint **233alleged only derivative claims. See Accredited Aides Plus , 46 N.Y.S.3d at 255 (finding certain claims by members of a workers' compensation group self-insured trust were direct, not derivative, in nature and observing that "just as the trust's deficits are eventually passed through to employer members as assessments by the Board, any recovery by the Board upon its claims on behalf of the trust will benefit the employer members by reducing the trust's deficit and the employer members' corresponding liabilities"). To the extent the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners' direct claims based on Rule 23, this was error.
Although we believe Petitioners' complaint may involve some direct claims, we nevertheless believe the court of appeals correctly found that certain claims were derivative in nature. Accordingly we turn now to what we view as the critical question before the Court-whether Petitioners' complaint met the pleading requirements of Rule 23 (b)(1).
C. Compliance with Rule 23(b)(1)
Lastly, Petitioners argue that even assuming Rule 23(b)(1) applies to their claims, the court of appeals erred in finding the requirements of that rule were not satisfied. We agree, for even if all claims are derivative and Rule 23(b)(1) applies, the demand and pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) have been met.
Both the trial court and the court of appeals found evaluation of whether Petitioners' complaint complied with Rule 23(b)(1) was governed by the court of appeals decision in Carolina First Corp. v. Whittle , 343 S.C. 176, 539 S.E.2d 402 (Ct. App. 2000). In Whittle , three shareholders of Carolina First Corporation brought a derivative action seeking to recover disproportionate stock bonuses paid to three executives. Id . at 180, 539 S.E.2d at 405. The complaint included general allegations that the plaintiffs made pre-suit demands upon the Board of Directors; however, the complaint stated "merely that the plaintiffs demanded 'certain information' and 'certain actions.' " Id . at 189, 539 S.E.2d at 409. The court of appeals concluded these allegations were not sufficiently particularized to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), holding "[a]t a minimum, a demand must identify the alleged wrongdoers, describe the factual basis of the wrongful acts and the harm **234caused to the corporation, and request remedial relief." Id . (citation omitted). The court of appeals noted that although the plaintiffs submitted copies of letters purporting to meet the pre-suit demand requirement, the letters could not be considered because they were not attached to the complaint; and in any event, the letters did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 23(b)(1). Id. at 189-90, 539 S.E.2d at 410. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded the trial court did not err in refusing to consider them. Id . at 190, 539 S.E.2d at 410.
The facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Whittle . Here, although the January 30, 2013 pre-suit demand letter was not expressly incorporated by reference into the complaint, unlike in Whittle , the January 30, 2013 letter does constitute an adequate demand in this case. Another issue here is Petitioners' failure to include the magic phrase "which is incorporated herein by reference" in their discussion of the letter in paragraph 8 of their complaint. Indeed, the allegations concerning the pre-suit demand in Petitioners' complaint are appreciably more detailed than those in Whittle . And certainly, when the January 30, 2013 letter is considered in conjunction with the complaint, there is ample evidence that Rule 23 is satisfied.9 The trial court simply found *689it was **235precluded from looking at the January 30, 2013 letter, which was error.
Moreover, in light of the parties' submissions and the trial court's willingness to consider multiple affidavits and documents outside the four corners of the complaint, we reject an approach that approves of a trial court's consideration of everything except the pre-suit demand letter that was actually sent and received. See L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC , 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining a complaint may be "deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit, materials incorporated in it by reference, and documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are 'integral' to the complaint" (quoting Sira v. Morton , 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004) ) ); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir. 2002) (explaining that "when a district court considers certain extra-pleading materials and excludes others, it risks depriving the parties of a fair adjudication of the claims by examining an incomplete record"). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Petitioners' complaint on the basis that it failed to comply with Rule 23(b)(1), SCRCP.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BEATTY, C.J., HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.