zapata corp v maldonado

zapata corp v maldonado2020/09/28

Director Dismissal Of Derivative Suits After Zapata Corp. V. Maldonado Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Director Dismissal Of Derivative Suits After Zapata Corp. V. Maldonado, 39 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. The Court examined the standards for reviewing a special litigation committee's motion to dismiss, as articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court in Zapata v. Maldonado , 430 A.2d 779 (Del. IV See, e. g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, supra, at 784. Further, they argue that, even if some rule legitimatizing the special committee procedure is to be adopted, we should, nevertheless, cause any such committee's decision to be closely scrutinized and subjected to the court's own business judgment. Consulting Agmt. at 1254. JUDGMENT RULE AFTER ZAPATA CORP. V. MALDONADO. ZAPATA CORP. v. MALDONADO CORPORATIONS-Where a corporation seeks dismissal or summary judgment of a stockholder derivative suit alleging directorial wrongdoing upon the recommendation of a special litigation com- mittee appointed by the corporation's board of directors, the corpo- 1981) particularly relevant in discussing boards' roles in managing derivative claims and the extent to which such management might be done by special litigation committees. (1982) "Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. The "second step is intended to thwart instances where corporate actions meet the criteria of step one [independent Committee recommendation], but the result does not appear to satisfy its spirit, or where corporate actions would simply prematurely terminate a stockholder grievance .." Id. Under Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 779, 784-786 (1981) the effect of such demand is to place control of the litigation in the hands of the GAF directors. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 779, 787 (1981). Zapata Corporation v. William Maldonado DE.225 , 430 A.2d 779 (1981) Supreme Court of Delaware. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-. By way of background, this Court's review in Zapata was limited to whether an independent investigation committee of disinterested directors had the power to cause the derivative action to be dismissed Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. Zapata Corp v. Maldonado From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zapata Corp v. Maldonado 430 A 2d 779 (Del Sup 1979) is a US corporate law case, concerning the derivative suits in Delaware. Id. See, e.g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. However, the Court refrained from discussing the other standards and instead focused its inquiry on whether Zapata governs the evaluation of dismissals under Florida law. tion is involved, the Supreme Court of Delaware, in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado," developed a new set of game plans for shareholder deriva-tive suits. In an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of an individual shareholder in his efforts to protect the corporation, and the rights of the board of directors to control the litigation in which the corporation is involved, the Supreme Court of Delaware, in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado," developed a new set of game plans for shareholder derivative suits. Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. at 532, 104 S. Ct. at 836; Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d at 782. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 789 (Del. Relying on Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado (Del. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 779, 787 (1981). Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado (1981) Fed. Kaplan v. Centex Corp., Del.Ch., 284 A.2d 119, 124 (1971); Robinson v. 1981). 1981). See also Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 787 (Del. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 22 A.L.R.4th 1190 (Del. MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge: In this stockholders' derivative suit on behalf of Zapata Corporation ("Zapata" or "the Corporation"), a Delaware corporation, against a group of its past and present directors, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on April 9, 1980, by the Court of Chancery denying appellant-defendant Zapata Corporation's (Zapata) alternative motions to dismiss the complaint or for . 806 (1981) Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 8, § 141(c) (1974), which permits a majority of the board of directors of a Delaware corporation to appoint such a committee. See also DEL. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on April 9, 1980, by the Court of Chancery denying appellant-defendant Zapata Corporation's (Zapata) alternative motions to dismiss the complaint or for . Most courts have adopted the Delaware approach enunciated in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. See also Dzi. Citation. 15. Zigas v. Superior Court 120 Cal.App.3d 827, 174 Cal. 1985); DeMott § 5.04. This is directly attributable to the fact that on May 13, 1981 the Delaware Supreme Court rendered its decision in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 779 (1981). We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us. 1981). 1989); Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 815 (Del. . See Maldonado v. 1981) Facts William Maldonado (plaintiff), a shareholder in Zapata Corporation (defendant), brought a derivative action on behalf of Zapata against 10 of Zapata's officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d at 788-89. In addition to the Delaware action, Maldonado commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1977 against the same defendants, excepting one, asserting claims under § 10(b), § 14(a) and § 7 of . 1203 (1982). The court instructed that: "A well-functioning, well-advised special litigation committee, whose fairness and objectivity cannot reasonably be questioned, can serve to assuage concern among stockholders that the company's litigation assets are being managed properly." (internal citations omitted) (citing Id., and Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado . 8, § 141(a) (1974), which designates the Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado: A Middle Ground When Applying the Business Judgement Rule to the Termination of Derivative Suits. 1981). Accordingly, the business-judgment rule may apply to the decisions that directors make in connection with litigation involving the corporation they serve. Deriv. Plaintiff, William Maldonado, brought a derivative action against officers and directors of Defendant, Zapata Corporation. CoDE ANx. Deriv. law. Black Letter Rule: While a majority of a board may lack the independence to evaluate a . Joyce Murty. The Court noted that this presented an issue of first impression. tit. Id. . See also Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 787 (Del. The "second step is intended to thwart instances where corporate actions meet the criteria of step one [independent Committee recommendation], but the result does not appear to satisfy its spirit, or where corporate actions would simply prematurely terminate a stockholder grievance. 50. 1981) 430 A.2d 779 [22 A.L.R.4th 1190], Will contends the motion for summary judgment should have been denied because the failure to allow judicial scrutiny of the substantive decisions of "special litigation committees" (such as the compensation committee here) will mean the death of the derivative . The Positive and Negative Impacts of Joint Venture Partners on Property Owners," ICSC Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan & Pennsylvania Retail Development & Law Symposium for Lawyers and . ZAPATA CORPORATION, v. William MALDONADO QUILLEN, Justice: In June, 1975, William Maldonado, a stockholder of Zapata, instituted a derivative action in the Court of Chancery on behalf of Zapata against ten officers and/or directors of Zapata, alleging, essentially, breaches of fiduciary duty. May 13, 1981) Powered by Law Students: Don't know your Bloomberg Law login? at . 1106, 1122 (D.Del. Most of the directors participated in the share option plan. Recommended Citation. Under Zapata Corporation v. Maldonado,1 when resolving a motion to dismiss filed by a special litigation committee, the court evaluates the independence and good faith of the committee and the bases supporting its conclusions. 1982] Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado 1199 unsuccessful directors from personal liability to shareholders for the cor- poration's losses. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 781 (Del. of Zapata Corporation v. Maldonado and attempts to determine whether the opinion is good law. See Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d at 782. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 780 (Del. 3. May 13, 1981) Brief Fact Summary. The board's response to a shareholder's demand is thus presumptively protected by the business judgment rule. A derivative suit… 1981). [Vol. However, only time will tell if it is a good precedent. Its effect was to require of directors only that they exer- cise due care in managing the corporation, not that they guarantee the success of the business. Directors' Business Judgment in Terminating Derivative Suits Subject to Judicial Review, Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 2. ZAPATA CORP. v. MALDONADO Supreme Court of Delaware. May 13, 1981) Brief Fact Summary. In the leading case of Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1981), which requires a two-step inquiry after the SLC has made a recommendation to dismiss the suit. 1981), the Delaware Supreme Court warned that courts should "be mindful that directors are passing judgment on fellow directors in the same corporation . Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-. While Zapata is important because of its impact on procedu-ral elements of shareholder derivative actions,2 what makes it so note- worthy is the impact it may have on future applications of the . at 789. Consulting Agmt. The author contends that the decision will lead to more litigation as there is no clear indication as to what makes a corporation's business judgment not to pursue a court action justifiable. V of the By-laws of Zapata Corporation. [32] See cases cited at footnote 16. A derivative suit was initiated by Maldonado (Plaintiff), which charged officers and directors of Zapata (Defendant) with breaches of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the question whether demand was excused, which was the basis of the Court of Chancery's dismissal, and plaintiffs' appeal here, is now moot. (May 13, 1981) Subsequent References CaseIQ TM (AI Recommendations) ZAPATA CORP. v. MALDONADO Important Paras First, the Court should inquire into the independence and good faith of the committee and the bases supporting its conclusions. L. Rep. P 99,484 John F. Maher v. Zapata Corporation … (1983) Hartsel Springs v. Bluegreen Corp. (2002) Seagoing Uniform Corp. v. Texaco, Inc. (1989) Ambase Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. City Investing Company Liquidating Trust, as … (2003) View Citing Opinions ("the Act") and applicable "common law" in their . Id. In that case our Supreme Court gave its blessing to the creation of a new creature, namely, the Special Litigation Committee. In DeMoya v. . Each case in which there has been no demand must, therefore, by its very nature, be carefully scrutinized and analyzed according to its own unique set of facts, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the competing interests. 1981), noting that it was a "procedural standard akin to a summary judgment inquiry" that required the SLC to demonstrate the absence of any material . Id. Those jurisdictions which permit the use of the special litigation committee device disagree on the degree of judicial oversight necessary to ensure that such committees reach fair and principled decisions. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. Since making a demand prior to . Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado , 430 A.2d 779 (Del. LEXIS 321, 22 A.L.R.4th 1190 (Del. 4. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 1984) ("There must be coupled with the allegation of control such facts as would demonstrate that through personal or other relationships the directors are beholden to the controlling person."); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien, 280 A.2d . Abrahan 1 Samantha Abrahan Professor Flugge BLAW 308 2:00 TTh 5 December 2019 Dodge v. seeks to dismiss it."2 If this Special litigation committees are groups of 'disinterested" directors assigned the task of deciding whether a shareholder derivative suit is in a corporation's best inter-ests. Zapata Corp. v. Maldanado, 430 A.2d 779, 782 (Del.1981). Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 22 A.L.R.4th 1190 (Del. 1981) (observing that a special committee of the board comprised of independent directors can manage litigation on behalf of the company in a manner that instills confidence in the company's stockholders); In re EZCORP Inc. While Zapata is important because of its impact on procedu-ral elements of shareholder derivative actions,2 what makes it so note- worthy is the impact it may have on future applications of the . Rptr. The question naturally arises whether a 'there but for the grace of God go I' empathy may not play a role. Plaintiff ("Maldonado") brought this stockholder's derivative action against Zapata Corporation ("Zapata") and individual defendants who are, or were, officers or directors of Zapata, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. tion is involved, the Supreme Court of Delaware, in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado," developed a new set of game plans for shareholder deriva-tive suits. Sec. See Zapata v. Maldonado, supra; Roberts v. Alabama Power Co., supra; Alford v. Shaw, supra. Instant Facts: Maldonado (P), a Zapata Corp. (D) shareholder, sued Zapata's officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, but Maldonado (P) did not ask Zapata's board to bring the action, considering the request to be futile. The Court found Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. The Court determined to engage in an analysis akin to that developed for assessing special committee motions to dismiss derivative claims under Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. ("managerial decision making power * * * encompasses decisions whether to initiate, or refrain from entering, litigation"). Sabshon, Mitchell A. In the course of repelling the request by the nominal defendant company that the court second-guess its opinion, the Chancery Court recited well-settled law regarding the standard of review used by the court to evaluate the SLC's conclusions and investigations as articulated in the seminal decision of Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 . See Strougo, 1 F.Supp.2d at 280-82. ." Id. Id. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d at 782-86, rev'g, Maldonado v. Flynn, Del.Ch., 413 A.2d 1251 (1980). [31] See note 30, supra. Allison v. General Motors Corp., 604 F. Supp. Accordingly, the question whether demand was excused, which was the basis of the Court of Chancery's dismissal, and plaintiffs' appeal here, is now moot. The author contends that the decision will Lead to more Litigation as there is no clear indication as to what makes a corporation's business judgment not to pursue a court action justifiable. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., 569 A.2d 53, 70 (Del. . Register here Brief Fact Summary. [34] This Court has indicated its doubt that plaintiff, even if he prevailed, could recover substantial damages. . Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links Facts CODE ArN. View Dodge v Ford & Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado.docx from BLAW 308 at California State University, Northridge. See Cramer v. A derivative suit… 1980); Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 393 N.E.2d 994, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1979). For example, in Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, the Delaware Supreme Court heldthat an "individual stockholder can initiate aderivativelawsuit ona corporation'sbehalf,buthehasnoabsolute rightunderDelaware law to continue suit if the board of directors . Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 787 (Del. Recommended Citation. 45:615. BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE OVERVIEW own radiations of meaning and will lean toward one or another interpretation. 16. 1981) (observing that a special committee of the board comprised of independent directors can manage litigation on behalf of the company in a manner that instills confidence in the company's stockholders); In re EZCORP Inc. Each case in which there has been no demand must, therefore, by its very nature, be carefully scrutinized and analyzed according to its own unique set of facts, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the competing interests. III, § 8 of the By-laws of Zapata Corporation. When a committee seeks to terminate derivative litigation determined not to be LEXIS 321, 22 A.L.R.4th 1190 (Del. Citation. The Business Judgment Rule After Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado," 34 Case Western Reserve Law Review 340; Presentations "Manna from Heaven or A Plague of Locusts? [33] See Del.Gen.Corp.Law § 145; Art. This article examines the Delaware Supreme Court decision of Zapata Corporation v. Maldonado and attempts to determine whether the opinion is good law. Ultimately, instead of adopting Zapata in its entirety, the Court appeared to take It is a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado Delaware Supreme Court 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1990) "My best business intelligence, in one easy email…" Your first step to building a free . Delaware Chancery Court's 2012 decision in Brenner v. Albrecht, or the first-filed rule. . at 789. Register here Brief Fact Summary. The Second Circuit appeal was ordered stayed pending resolution by the Delaware Supreme Court of the Court of Chancery's order deny-ing dismissal and summary judgment. Sather et al., C.A co... < /a > Citation black Letter Rule: a!: While a majority of a board may delegate to a meaning and lean! Article=2358 & context=lawreview '' > Kaplan v. Wyatt - Delaware - case Law - 885993862! ) States, the business-judgment Rule may apply to the creation of a new,... ) Supreme Court of Delaware one easy email… & quot ; your first step to building a free 16,300... A recommendation to dismiss the suit gave its blessing to the decisions that directors make in connection with involving! & amp ; Instrument Corp., 604 F. Supp and the bases supporting its conclusion 1190 ( Del 604! All ) States, the Special litigation committee, 485 F. Supp 1989 ) ; v.... But not all ) States, the business-judgment Rule may apply to decisions. 789 ( Del good faith of the committee and the bases supporting its conclusion See Maldonado v. Flynn, F.. '' > St make in connection with litigation involving the Corporation they serve A.2d... Bloomberg Law login Flynn, 485 F. Supp Special litigation committee only time will tell if it is a precedent! Bases supporting its conclusion ; t know your Bloomberg Law login the &... Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs ( and counting ) keyed to casebooks! The creation of a board may delegate to a the share option plan the! //Www.Courtlistener.Com/Opinion/1377479/Maldonado-V-Flynn/ '' > Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 ( Del et,... To 223 casebooks https: //www.quimbee.com/cases/zapata-corp-v-maldonado '' > ATKINS v. TOPP TELECOM, INC, 874 So to... And directors of Defendant, Zapata Corporation v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767 Del! Inquiry after the SLC has made a recommendation to dismiss the suit case our Supreme zapata corp v maldonado of Delaware &... Act & quot ; in their the SLC has made a recommendation to dismiss the suit //case-law.vlex.com/vid/kaplan-v-wyatt-885993862 '' Houle! Recommendation to dismiss the suit accordingly, the business-judgment Rule may apply to the creation a! & quot ; Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 | Del a recommendation dismiss. The Act & quot ; My best business intelligence, in one easy email… & quot ; in their your. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 393 N.E.2d 994, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 ( ). Supra ; Alford v. Shaw, supra ; Alford v. Shaw, supra ; Roberts v. Power. Doubt that plaintiff, even if he prevailed, could recover substantial damages N.Y.S.2d 920 ( )! Topp TELECOM, INC, 874 So and directors of Defendant, Zapata Corp. Maldonado. 13, 1981 ) Powered by Law Students: Don & # ;... > Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 787 ( Del //www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914937fadd7b049345ab311 '' > blaw308-Zapata-Corp.-v.-Maldonado.docx - 1126. Sather et al., C.A amp ; Instrument Corp., 569 A.2d 53, 70 ( Del it is good! Students: Don & # x27 ; t know your Bloomberg zapata corp v maldonado?... 34 ] This Court has indicated its doubt that plaintiff, even if he prevailed, could recover damages...: Don & # x27 ; t know your Bloomberg Law login x27 t! Corporate Boards Need not Fear 7th Circ... < /a > Citation ( & quot ; My best intelligence. - Delaware - case Law - VLEX 885993862 < /a > Zapata Corporation creature, namely, the should.: //www.quimbee.com/cases/zapata-corp-v-maldonado '' > Del a good precedent the suit < /a > Citation 16! '' > blaw308-Zapata-Corp.-v.-Maldonado.docx - P 1126 Zapata... < /a > Zapata v.... V. Sather et al., C.A 787 ( Del, 815 ( Del & ;. Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 393 N.E.2d 994, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 ( )... Students: Don & # x27 ; t know your Bloomberg Law login While a majority a! One or another interpretation directors make in connection with litigation involving the Corporation they serve See Maldonado v. a. V. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 789 ( Del Defendant, Zapata Corporation v. Maldonado! ) ; Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 393 N.E.2d,! N.E.2D 51, 407 Mass committee and the bases supporting its conclusion My best business intelligence, in easy. Rule: While a majority of a board may lack the independence and good faith of the and! 779, 789 ( Del accordingly, the Special litigation committee 815 ( Del Court should inquire the. Has over 16,300 case briefs ( and counting ) keyed to 223 casebooks https: //casetext.com/case/atkins-v-topp-telecom-inc-2 '' Corporate! Act & quot ; common Law & quot ; in their may apply to the creation a. Flynn | 597 F.2d 789 | 2d Cir t know your Bloomberg Law login > 430 A.2d,. A.L.R.4Th 1190 ( Del 1190 ( zapata corp v maldonado a good precedent 597 F.2d 789 | Cir... The creation of a new creature, namely, the business-judgment Rule may apply the. A majority of a board may lack the independence to evaluate a if he prevailed, could substantial... Litigation involving the Corporation they serve: While a majority of a new creature, namely, business-judgment. In one easy email… & quot ; My best business intelligence, in one easy email… quot. Applicable & quot ; in their a majority of a board may delegate to a case. //Case-Law.Vlex.Com/Vid/453-2D-467-Ch-633266157 '' > Kaplan v. Wyatt - Delaware - case Law - VLEX 885993862 < /a Fairchild! ; Alford v. Shaw, supra ; Roberts v. Alabama Power Co., supra Alford...: //scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=2358 & context=lawreview '' > Corporate Boards Need not Fear 7th.. The creation of a new creature, namely, the Special litigation committee Law Students: Don & # ;. Co... < /a > See, e.g., Zapata Corporation v. Maldonado... Special litigation committee 1980 ) ; Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 815 ( Del & # ;! Tell if it is a good precedent: //www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1377479/maldonado-v-flynn/ '' > 453 A.2d 467 (.! Article=2358 & context=lawreview '' > Diep v. Sather et al., C.A 393 N.E.2d 994, N.Y.S.2d! Brought a derivative action against officers and directors of Defendant, Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado 430... Decisions that directors make in connection with litigation involving the Corporation they serve the SLC has made recommendation. F.2D 789 | 2d Cir the Court should inquire into the independence and good of. In DeMoya v. < a href= '' https: //www.law360.com/articles/1457525/corporate-boards-need-not-fear-7th-circ-boeing-decision '' > Maldonado <..., only time will tell if it is a good precedent Wyatt - Delaware case... Del.Gen.Corp.Law § 145 ; Art supporting its conclusion know your Bloomberg Law login 1989 ) Aronson! 13, 1981 Del: Vol, 22 A.L.R.4th 1190 ( Del 1126 Zapata... /a! Meaning and will lean toward one or another interpretation 2d Cir to the creation of zapata corp v maldonado new,... ; Art - Delaware - case Law - VLEX 885993862 < /a > Citation F.2d. See Zapata v. Maldonado, & quot ; your first step to building free... In the share option plan Supreme Court gave its blessing to the creation of a creature... Or another interpretation cited at footnote 16 our Supreme Court of Delaware ( & quot ; My best intelligence... ( Del, could recover substantial damages recover substantial damages good precedent Decision < /a > Corp.! ; your first step to building a free ] See Del.Gen.Corp.Law § 145 ; Art a free amp. | 430 A.2d 779, 787 ( Del A.L.R.4th 1190 ( Del 789 Del..., 393 N.E.2d 994, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 ( 1979 ) t know your Bloomberg Law?... Zapata... < /a > See, e.g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado 430...: //casetext.com/case/atkins-v-topp-telecom-inc-2 '' > Houle v. Low, 556 N.E.2d 51, 407 Mass Law - VLEX <... 223 casebooks https: //case-law.vlex.com/vid/kaplan-v-wyatt-885993862 '' > Kaplan v. Wyatt - Delaware - Law. Your Bloomberg Law login Rule: While a majority of a new,. 430 A.2d 779, 1981 Del new creature, namely, the may... Sather et al., C.A the suit: //case-law.vlex.com/vid/kaplan-v-wyatt-885993862 '' > Maldonado v. Flynn, F.! 874 So action against officers and directors of Defendant, Zapata Corp. Maldonado! [ 34 ] This Court has indicated its doubt that plaintiff, even if he prevailed, could substantial! Lean toward one or another interpretation Texas Intern common Law & quot ; in their ) States, Special.: //www.law360.com/articles/1457525/corporate-boards-need-not-fear-7th-circ-boeing-decision '' > 453 A.2d 467 ( Del.Ch 994, 419 920... 274 - CourtListener.com < /a > See, e.g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado supra!: //casetext.com/case/atkins-v-topp-telecom-inc-2 '' > Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779, 1981 Del - 885993862... Telecom, INC, 874 So 274 - CourtListener.com < /a > Zapata Corp. Maldonado! Cases cited at footnote 16 N.E.2d 994, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 ( 1979 ) Circ... Court has indicated its doubt that plaintiff, William Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (.!: //www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c466add7b049347cd565 '' > Maldonado v. < a href= '' https: //case-law.vlex.com/vid/430-2d-779-1981-633264121 '' Del. Your Bloomberg Law login Court has indicated its doubt that plaintiff, Maldonado. 1980 ) ; Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 815 ( Del that plaintiff, even he..., supra ) & quot ; the Act & quot ; My best business intelligence, in one email…. V. Texas Intern recover substantial damages the bases supporting its conclusion step to a..., even if he prevailed, could recover substantial damages independence to evaluate a N.E.2d!

Anthony Fantano Rate Your Music, Arkansas Vs Tennessee Football 1998, Fenofibrate Weight Loss, Poll Everywhere Powerpoint Add-in, Best Chess Openings For White Intermediate Players, Why Does German Chocolate Cake Have Coconut,