Legal Opinion

Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 17, 1952PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Seitz, Chancellor:

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction restraining the consummation of an agreement of merger between defendant corporations. They assert that the merger plan was not approved by a quorum of disinterested directors and that the terms of the agreement are both fraudulent and unfair to the so-called minority stockholders of the corporation to be merged.

*23Plaintiffs are certain minority stockholders of the defendant Mayflower Hotel Corporation (hereafter called “Mayflower”). At a directors’ meeting held March 6, 1952, Mayflower’s directors approved a plan whereby Mayflower was…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
  2. Cole v. National Cash Credit Ass'nCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
  3. Porges v. Vadsco Sales Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1943
  4. Italo-Petroleum Corporation of America v. HanniganSupreme Court of Delaware · 1940
  5. State v. Penn-Beaver Oil Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1926

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. David J. Greene & Co. v. Dunhill International, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1968
  2. Puma v. MarriottCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1971
  3. Gries Sports Enterprises, Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. David J. Greene & Co. v. Schenley Industries, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1971
  5. Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1952

10 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