Legal Opinion

Japha v. Delaware Valley Utilities Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided July 12, 1940No. 42PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Rodney, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

It has become quite usual in corporate indentures securing bond issues to include certain clauses which are, at times, called “no action clauses” or “Limitation of Action Clauses.” Reasonable restrictions on the right of an individual holder of one or more of a series of corporate bonds, either in respect to the obligation or of the security, have generally been held valid and enforceable. These reasonable restrictions are viewed as not tending to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court, but as wholesome restrictions imposed for the benefit…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bullowa v. Thermoid Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  2. Noble v. European Mortgage & Investment Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  3. Tietjen v. United Post Offices Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  4. Halle v. Van Sweringen Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1936
  5. Mermelstein v. Thermoid Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Edward S. Watts v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API