Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “we must defer to the factfinder on a mixed question of fact and law, as to which reasonable minds may differ on the question of materiality”
• “We must defer to the factfinder on a mixed question of fact and law, as to which reasonable minds may differ on the question of materiality.”
• “[A] plaintiff’s burden of proof of a director’s self-interest in an arms-length third party transaction should be greater than in a classic self-dealing transaction where a director or directors stand on both sides of a transaction.”
• “Essentially, the duty of loyalty mandates that the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders takes precedence over any interest possessed by a director, officer or controlling shareholder and not shared by the stockholders generally.”
• “Enacted in 1967, section 144(a) codified judicially acknowledged principles of corporate governance to provide a limited safe harbor for corporate boards to prevent director conflicts of interest from voiding corporate action.” (citing 56 Del.Laws, ch. 50 (1967)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1996-09-25· cited 387×
• Orman v. Cullman
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 2002-03-01· cited 318×
• Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1995-07-17· cited 242×
• Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1994-10-12· cited 93×
• Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2005-06-28· cited 83×
• Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2008-04-07· cited 83×
• VFB LLC v. Campbell Soup Co.
  Third Circuit· 2007-03-30· cited 80×
• Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1996-10-21· cited 63×
• Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2008-06-03· cited 61×
• Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1995-11-22· cited 35×
• Deutscher Tennis Bund v. Atp Tour, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 2010-06-25· cited 34×
• Behradrezaee v. Dashtara
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2006-11-09· cited 26×
• Potter v. Pohlad
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1997-03-04· cited 21×
• Starr International Co., Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  Second Circuit· 2014-01-29· cited 21×
• King v. Douglass
  S.D. Texas· 1996-12-23· cited 14×
• Reed v. Linehan (In Re Soporex, Inc.)
  N.D. Texas· 2011-11-28· cited 14×
• Elloway v. Pate
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2007-11-01· cited 14×
• Giuliano v. Schnabel (In re DSI Renal Holdings, LLC)
  D. Delaware· 2017-07-20· cited 14×
• Buechner v. Avery
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2007-03-27· cited 10×
• In re Capital One Derivative Shareholder Litigation
  E.D. Virginia· 2013-06-21· cited 8×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1976-06-14· cited 2,447×
• Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1994-01-18· cited 456×
• Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1985-05-09· cited 268×
• Levitt v. Bouvier
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1972-01-04· cited 265×