Legal Opinion

Mainiero v. Microbyx Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided September 18, 1996No. C.A. No. 14228PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STEELE, Vice Chancellor.

The issue presented by the pending motions to reargue lead to the single conclusion that, in a highly combative contest for corporate control, strict adherence to the traditional rule, that the validity of a proxy must be determined from the face of that proxy, is particularly important. Thus, when neither the record holder nor the beneficial holder of shares can be determined from the face of the proxy, those shares may not be counted. By the same token, in the absence of evidence tending to show an apparently authorized signer of a proxy is not so entitled,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1988
  2. Standard Power & Light Corp. v. Investment Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1947
  3. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  4. Williams v. Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1971
  5. Preston v. AllisonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re: Appraisal of Dell Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2016
  2. CII Parent, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2023
  3. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. CX360, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2024
  4. ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds American, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2022
  5. Rodolfo Enrique Jimenez v. Luisa PalaciosCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2019

1 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