Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schultz v. Ginsburggreen2 sentences2015Schultz v. Ginsburg (PHLX II), 965 A.2d 661, 667 (Del. 2009) ("As a matter of law, a Charter Violation claim transfers to a later purchaser because the injury is to the stock and not the holder.”); Prodigy, 2002 WL 1767543 , at *4 (“[WJhen Beoshanz sold his shares in the marketplace, the claim relating to the fairness of the then-proposed transaction passed to his purchaser, who enjoyed the benefits of the settlement.”); Triarc, 791 A.2d at 878-79 (explaining owners of stock who sell their shares are “viewed as having sold their interest in the claim, with their shares”); In re Sunstates Corp. 2015Schultz v. Ginsburg (PHLX II), 965 A.2d 661, 667 (Del. 2009) ("As a matter of law, a Charter Violation claim transfers to a later purchaser because the injury is to the stock and not the holder.”); Prodigy, 2002 WL 1767543 , at *4 (“[WJhen Beoshanz sold his shares in the marketplace, the claim relating to the fairness of the then-proposed transaction passed to his purchaser, who enjoyed the benefits of the settlement.”); Triarc, 791 A.2d at 878-79 (explaining owners of stock who sell their shares are “viewed as having sold their interest in the claim, with their shares”); In re Sunstates Corp. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Triarc Companies, Inc.green2 sentences2015Schultz v. Ginsburg (PHLX II), 965 A.2d 661, 667 (Del. 2009) ("As a matter of law, a Charter Violation claim transfers to a later purchaser because the injury is to the stock and not the holder.”); Prodigy, 2002 WL 1767543 , at *4 (“[WJhen Beoshanz sold his shares in the marketplace, the claim relating to the fairness of the then-proposed transaction passed to his purchaser, who enjoyed the benefits of the settlement.”); Triarc, 791 A.2d at 878-79 (explaining owners of stock who sell their shares are “viewed as having sold their interest in the claim, with their shares”); In re Sunstates Corp. 2015Schultz v. Ginsburg (PHLX II), 965 A.2d 661, 667 (Del. 2009) ("As a matter of law, a Charter Violation claim transfers to a later purchaser because the injury is to the stock and not the holder.”); Prodigy, 2002 WL 1767543 , at *4 (“[WJhen Beoshanz sold his shares in the marketplace, the claim relating to the fairness of the then-proposed transaction passed to his purchaser, who enjoyed the benefits of the settlement.”); Triarc, 791 A.2d at 878-79 (explaining owners of stock who sell their shares are “viewed as having sold their interest in the claim, with their shares”); In re Sunstates Corp. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaskill v. Gladys Belle Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1938Since the statute ranks higher in gradation of authority than the charter, then it must follow, say the solicitors for the defendant, that if the statute prescribes that a mere majority vote shall validate a proposed amendment, a provision in the charter that more than a mere majority shall be required, seventy-five per cent, for instance, the so-called self-amendment by the charter rule must succumb to the majority rule of the statute under the doctrine of Gaskill v. Gladys Belle Oil Co., 16 Del. 1938Since the statute ranks higher in gradation of authority than the charter, then it must follow, say the solicitors for the defendant, that if the statute prescribes that a mere majority vote shall validate a proposed amendment, a provision in the charter that more than a mere majority shall be required, seventy-five per cent. for instance, the so-called self-amendment by the charter rule must succumb to the majority rule of the statute under the doctrine of Gaskill v. Gladys Belle Oil Co., 16 Del.Ch. 289 , 146 A. 337 . | 2 | 1938–1938 |
Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995As to that limited disclosure issue, the Court of Chancery held on remand that the unanimity requirement in Technicolor’s charter was unaffected by director interest in the absence of “fraud or mutual mistake.” Cinerama, 663 A.2d at 1155 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995The variation was that this Court, while affirming the ruling that Ryan’s undisclosed and “assumed” interest was not material for disclosure purposes pursuant to the holding in Rosenblatt , directed the Court of Chancery to consider Ryan’s assumed interest “in the context of Technicolor’s charter requirement of director unanimity.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Peterman v. City of Milford
neutral
1 sentence1975The resolution shall state the amount of money pro posed to be borrowed, the purpose for which it is to be used, the manner of securing the same, and all other pertinent facts relating to the loan, including the method of repayment, and the resolution shall also fix a time and place for a public hearing to be held on the proposed borrowing.” (Emphasis added) Plaintiffs argue that because the resolution does not state the times of maturity and the approximate amount of taxes to be levied annually for interest and repayment, it does not comply with the Charter requirement that the resolution sta | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Eastern Shore Public Service Co. v. Town of Seaford
green
2 sentences1975The resolution shall state the amount of money pro posed to be borrowed, the purpose for which it is to be used, the manner of securing the same, and all other pertinent facts relating to the loan, including the method of repayment, and the resolution shall also fix a time and place for a public hearing to be held on the proposed borrowing.” (Emphasis added) Plaintiffs argue that because the resolution does not state the times of maturity and the approximate amount of taxes to be levied annually for interest and repayment, it does not comply with the Charter requirement that the resolution sta 1975The resolution shall state the amount of money pro posed to be borrowed, the purpose for which it is to be used, the manner of securing the same, and all other pertinent facts relating to the loan, including the method of repayment, and the resolution shall also fix a time and place for a public hearing to be held on the proposed borrowing.” (Emphasis added) Plaintiffs argue that because the resolution does not state the times of maturity and the approximate amount of taxes to be levied annually for interest and repayment, it does not comply with the Charter requirement that the resolution sta | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Peterman v. City of Milford
neutral
1 sentence1975The resolution shall state the amount of money pro posed to be borrowed, the purpose for which it is to be used, the manner of securing the same, and all other pertinent facts relating to the loan, including the method of repayment, and the resolution shall also fix a time and place for a public hearing to be held on the proposed borrowing.” (Emphasis added) Plaintiffs argue that because the resolution does not state the times of maturity and the approximate amount of taxes to be levied annually for interest and repayment, it does not comply with the Charter requirement that the resolution sta | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.