Bomarko, Inc. v. International Telecharge, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that $0.30 per share was not a fair price, then valuing the company to calculate damages at $1.51 per share
• concluding on the facts of the case that “any order requiring disgorgement would constitute a double recovery for the plaintiffs”
• finding that' “mathematical certainty” is not required, “so long as the Court has a basis to make a responsible estimate of damages”
• explaining that a fiduciary “may not use superior information or knowledge to mislead others in the performance of their own fiduciary obligations”
• concluding on the facts of the case that “any order requiring disgorgement would constitute a double recovery for the plaintiffs”
• explaining that a fiduciary “may not use superior information or knowledge to mislead others in the performance of their own fiduciary obligations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).