Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Enstar Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided August 16, 1984PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.

This is my decision on the applications for preliminary injunctions which must be denied because the plaintiffs have not borne their burden at this preliminary injunction stage of showing the reasonable probability that the challenged acts of the defendants are not protected by the business judgment rule.

I

Two lawsuits have been filed challenging certain acts of the directors of Enstar Corporation (“Enstar”), a Delaware corporation. Both suits arise because of an ongoing proxy contest being waged in connection with the annual meeting of Enstar and because of a pending…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  2. Michelson v. DuncanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1979
  3. Gimbel v. Signal Companies, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1974
  4. Gimbel v. Signal Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1974
  5. Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1977

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mills Acquisition Co. v. MacMillan, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  2. Aprahamian v. HBO & Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1987
  3. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. CrawfordCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2007
  4. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward County Farm BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  5. In Re Staples, Inc. Shareholders LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2001

8 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