Legal Opinion
Krim v. ProNet, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided September 14, 1999No. C.A. 15873PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STEELE, V.C.
In his Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), shareholder Jerry Krim (“Plaintiff’) alleges that the directors of ProNet, Inc. (“ProNet”) breached their fiduciary duty by failing to secure a higher exchange ratio for ProNet shares in a merger with MetroCall Inc. (“MetroCall”), and by placing their personal interests above the interests of ProNet stockholders during the negotiations with MetroCall. Later, in his Answering Brief to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff also alleges that the defendant directors breached their duty of disclosure, a subset of the duty of loyalty, by…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Guth v. Loft, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1939
- Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1986
- Malone v. BrincatSupreme Court of Delaware · 1998
- Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Orman v. CullmanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2002
- C & J Energy Services, Inc. v. City of Miami General Employees'Supreme Court of Delaware · 2014
- In Re Cysive, Inc. Shareholders LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
- Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.