Legal Opinion

Le v. Pham

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 6, 2010No. G041473PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

In this case we hold that where the bylaws of a pharmacy corporation provide that one stockholder must give another a right of first refusal on the sale of any stock, it is a breach of fiduciary duty for the selling stockholder to attempt to sell to a third party in violation of the right of first refusal. We thus remand the case back to the trial court to ascertain the proper damages, both to the corporation itself and to the other stockholder, for such a breach.

I. FACTS AND LITIGATION HISTORY

In 2006, Tien Le and his wife Dieu-Hoa Le owned 50 percent of the corporate…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1994
  2. Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Louis K. Liggett Co. v. BaldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Singleton v. Friedberg CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
  2. Tianjin Weinada Internat. Trading Co. v. Tianjin Tianwu Internat. Trade Development Co. CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
  3. Williams v. Harden CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API