For Your Data Kistefos Every Mo V. Trico Marine Services, Inc. Representative Brief
February 06, 2016
Edit
Kistefos AS v. Trico Marine Services, Inc. instance brief summary
2009 WL 112447
CASE FACTS
The company's bulk stockholder sent a alphabetic lineament to the company's board that included several proposals to endure position earlier the company's stockholders for a vote at its annual meeting. Included inward the alphabetic lineament was a proposal for a bylaw regarding the eligibility of directors. The society rejected the proposal every bit invalid if adopted because it was inconsistent alongside the company's certificate of incorporation and Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(b), (k). The minority stockholder argued that the proposal should endure presented at the annual coming together inward the same trend every bit the other proposals. The society argued that, inward club to save its legal position, it had to disregard the proposal at the coming together together with forestall it from beingness presented to the stockholders every bit a valid proposal for a vote.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The displace to expedite was denied.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations together with Business Associations Law
2009 WL 112447
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff minority stockholder filed a displace to expedite an activeness for a proclamation that defendants, society together with its board, improperly rejected a proposed bylaw every bit inconsistent alongside Delaware police pull together with the company's certificate of incorporation.CASE FACTS
The company's bulk stockholder sent a alphabetic lineament to the company's board that included several proposals to endure position earlier the company's stockholders for a vote at its annual meeting. Included inward the alphabetic lineament was a proposal for a bylaw regarding the eligibility of directors. The society rejected the proposal every bit invalid if adopted because it was inconsistent alongside the company's certificate of incorporation and Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(b), (k). The minority stockholder argued that the proposal should endure presented at the annual coming together inward the same trend every bit the other proposals. The society argued that, inward club to save its legal position, it had to disregard the proposal at the coming together together with forestall it from beingness presented to the stockholders every bit a valid proposal for a vote.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom institute that because the company's legal seat was preserved, it had no ground to forestall a vote on the proposal.
- Accordingly, the bulk stockholder could solicit proxies together with introduce arguments at the annual coming together regarding the proposed bylaw inward the same trend that it was permitted to produce alongside observe to the other proposals.
- Thus, the involve for expedited proceedings was obviated.
CONCLUSION
The displace to expedite was denied.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations together with Business Associations Law