Legal Opinion

Youngman v. Tahmoush

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided January 5, 1983PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.

Defendants moved to dismiss this stockholder’s derivative action on the grounds that plaintiff has an incurable conflict of interest which precludes his representation of the stockholders. The motion must be denied.

I

This stockholder’s derivative action was brought by plaintiff, Bruce Youngman, on behalf of all the stockholders of Frank B. Hall & Company (“Hall”) for damages and other relief arising out of alleged improper actions taken by the Board of Directors of Hall in response to an incomplete takeover attempt by Ryder Systems, Inc. (“Ryder”). Plaintiff maintains…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. duPont v. WylyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1973
  2. Catherine Wilson Nolen, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Stockholders of the Shaw-Walker Company v. The Shaw-Walker CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
  3. Roussel v. Tidelands Capital Corp.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1977
  4. Schnorbach v. FuquaDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1975
  5. Globus, Inc. v. JaroffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers UnionCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1987
  2. South ex rel. Hecla Mining Co. v. BakerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2012
  3. In Re Fuqua Industries, Inc. Shareholder LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
  4. Emerald Partners v. BerlinCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1989
  5. In Re Best Lock Corp. Shareholder LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2001

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API