Chesapeake Corp. v. Shore

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a turnout of 90% in a contested solicitation at a public company would be realistic
• finding that a turnout of 90% in a contested solicitation at a public company would be realistic
• noting that “under Unocal, it putatively remains open to the defendants to demonstrate that the [board action] was ‘entirely fair’ even though their threat analysis . . . was inadequate”
• discussing that in the context of Section 203, the terms “agreement,” “arrangement,” or “understanding” “permit a fairly high degree of informality in the form in which the parties come together” but “presuppose[] a meeting of the minds”
• “[T]hey failed to submit convincing evidence that such deals increase the potential for ‘abusive takeovers.’”
• “If stockholders are presumed competent to buy stock in the first place, why are they not presumed competent to decide when to sell in a tender offer after an adequate time for deliberation has been afforded them? ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).