In Re Pennaco Energy, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the defendant corporation “resisted [the buyer’s] request for a termination fee equal to 5% of the value placed on [the defendant’s] equity in the transaction, and had settled on a termination fee at the more traditional level of 3%”
• applying enhanced scrutiny to “an end-game transaction that represents the final opportunity for Pennaco’s stockholders to realize value from their investment in the company”
• applying enhanced scrutiny to “an end-game transaction that represents the final opportunity for Pennaco’s stockholders to realize value from their investment in the company”
• “[T]he board’s grant of options to itself on July 28, 2000 was consistent with a policy of aligning the board’s interests with those of the stockholders. This is a permissible purpose.”
• “[T]he mere fact that the Pennaco board decided to focus on negotiating a favorable price with Marathon and not to seek out other bidders is not one that alone supports a breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).