Jedwab v. MGM Grand Hotels, 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 preferred stockholder could challenge controller's allocation of merger consideration between preferred and common but concluding that the defendants were likely to meet their burden
• holding that preferred stockholder could challenge controller’s allocation of merger consideration between preferred and common but concluding that the defendants were likely to meet their burden
• holding that preferred stockholder could challenge controller’s allocation of merger consideration between preferred and common but concluding that the defendants were likely to meet their burden
• finding that Delaware law “does not ... require ... controlling shareholders sacrifice their own financial interest in the enterprise for the sake of the corporation or its minority shareholders.”
• observing that “[t]he prototyp[ical] instance in which the timing of a merger would itself likely constitute a breach of a controlling shareholder’s duty is when it could be shown both (1
• “prototype instance” of majority stockholders breach of duty involves timing of merger with resulting financial injury to minority and with commensurate gain to controlling stockholder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).