ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog

Chancery Grants Motion To Intervene in Contested Stock Issuance Case

By Francis G. X. Pileggi, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Noe v. Kropf, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 148 (Oct. 15, 2008), is a Chancery Court decision that discusses the factors under Chancery Court Rule 24  applicable to a motion to intervene. This case involved a shareholder who sought to intervene because the original plaintiff was requesting from the Court a declaration that the stock owned by the intervenor and issued by a contested board was void. The intervenor/shareholder was Turnaround Advisors, LLC.

The Court observed that Rule 24 provides for both discretionary and mandatory intervention. This case fell into Rule 24(a) because intervention was warranted as a matter of right. In order to be eligible for either mandatory or discretionary intervention,  however, one must first have standing. The Court reasoned that even though the intervenor 's shares were issued after the date that the contested board was elected, the intervenor should have standing to allow it to establish the legitimacy of the board that issued its shares in order for it to prove that its shares were validly issued by the board. In addition, the Court was concerned that no other party would be representing the interests of the intervenor if intervention was denied.

The original complaint sought relief under DGCL section 225 (to determine whether the election of a board was valid) and section 227 (to determine the votings rights of those who claim to own stock).

The Court also granted a motion to vacate a prior order to expedite the proceedings to allow time for the intervenor to engage in discovery, but the Court expected the parties to agree to a new accelerated  timetable in light of a Section 225 case being an expedited proceeding.

Full post as published by Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog on October 27, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 11/02/26 23:09:26)