Sachs v. Seminole Oil & Gas Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
I first consider the exception of Management and of the Opposition to the Master’s conclusion that the proxies solicited by both groups should be counted. Both Management and Opposition renew their contention that in soliciting proxies the opposing group was guilty of material misrepresentations.
The Master’s report outlines the more important “misrepresentations” relied upon by the opposing factions. The Master then goes on to say that he assumes without deciding that the identified material employed on both sides was false and misleading in the respects charged. Thereafter…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
- Cahall v. LoflandCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1921
- American Hardware Corp. v. Savage Arms Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1957
- Atterbury v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
- Scully v. Automobile Finance Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Condec Corporation v. Lunkenheimer CompanyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1967
- Condec Corp. v. Lunkenheimer Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1967
- In Re Seminole Oil & Gas CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
- Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Mencher v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1960