Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clarifying the Meaning of 'Stockholder'
In a decision with facts egregious enough to justify two references to the definition of “chutzpah,” Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery provided helpful guidance on how to establish and refute “stockholder” status for purposes of bringing an action to inspect corporate books and records under 8 Del. C. Section 220, in Pogue v. Hybrid Energy, C.A. No. 11563-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct. Aug. 5). The vice chancellor held that “inclusion on a stock ledger is prima facie evidence of stock ownership but … the corporate defendant may rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.”
Section 220
Section 220 allows a stockholder to make a demand to inspect the books and records of the corporation so long as it is for a “proper purpose,” which the statute defines as being “a purpose reasonably related to such person's interest as a stockholder.” The corporation has five days to respond to such a demand once it has been made. If the corporation does not respond within that time or if in its response it refuses to allow a books-and-records inspection, then the stockholder may bring an action to compel production of those records in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Of particular relevance here is the statutory requirement that a Section 220 demand ' and any action based on the refusal of that demand ' must be brought by “a stockholder.” The issue of whether one who claims to be a stockholder is truly a stockholder for Section 220 purposes was presented front and center in Pogue.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.