Broz v. Cellular Information Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that party had no interest or expectancy in business opportunity to purchase cellular license when party “was actively engaged in the process- of divesting its cellular license holdings.” Id.
• holding that party had no interest or expectancy in business opportunity to purchase cellular license when party “was actively engaged in the process of divesting its cellular license holdings.” Id.
• “[P]resenting the opportunity to the board creates a kind of ‘safe harbor’ for the director, which removes the specter of a post hoc judicial determination that the director or officer has improperly usurped a corporate opportunity.”
• “CIS was actively engaged in the process of divesting its cellular license holdings . . . . Thus, CIS had no interest or expectancy in the Michigan–2 opportunity.”
• \The teaching of Guth and its progeny is that the director or officer must analyze the situation ex ante to determine whether the opportunity is one rightfully belonging to the corporation.\
• referring to actual or expectant interest in “specific property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).