Book Title
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781337605656
Author: CROSS
Publisher: CENGAGE L
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 6BCP
Summary Introduction
Case s ummary:LLC named F and M sued the company MA, situated in New Jersey, in federal district court. 10
To f ind: The possibility in enforcement of diversity jurisdiction by the district court assuming that the amount in controversy had exceeded
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Explain limited-liability company (LLC).
Klinicki and Lundgren, both furloughed Pan Am pilots stationed in West Germany, decided to start their own charter airline company. They formed Berlinair, Inc., a closely held Oregon corporation. Lundgren was president and a director in charge of developing the business. Klinicki was vice president and a director in charge of operations and maintenance. Klinicki, Lundgren, and Lelco, Inc. (Lundgren’s family business), each owned one-third of the stock. Klinicki and Lundgren, as representatives of Berlinair, met with BFR, a consortium of Berlin travel agents, to negotiate a lucrative air transportation contract. When Lundgren learned of the likelihood of actually obtaining the BFR contract, he formed his own solely owned company, Air Berlin Charter Company (ABC). Although he continued to negotiate for the BFR contract, he did so on behalf of ABC, not Berlinair. Eventually BFR awarded the contract to ABC. Klinicki commenced a derivative action on behalf of Berlinair and a suit against…
If within 60 days from the approval of corporation action by stockholders, the dissenting stockholder and the corporation cannot agree on the fair value of the shares, who shall determine the price of shares? *
Three disinterested persons, one named by the stockholder, another named by the corporation and the third chosen by the two whose decision by majority is binding and final
The dissenting shareholder
The Securities and Exchange commission
The Commercial Court
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Sayre learned that Adams, Boone, and Chase were planning to form a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing a line of novelties to wholesale outlets. Sayre had patented a self-locking gas tank cap but lacked the financial backing to market it profitably. He negotiated with Adams, Boone, and Chase, who agreed to purchase the patent rights for $5,000 in cash and two hundred shares of $100 par value preferred stock in a corporation to be formed. The corporation was formed and Sayre’s stock issued to him, but the corporation has refused to make the cash payment. It has also refused to declare dividends, although the business has been very profitable because of Sayre’s patent and has a substantial earned surplus with a large cash balance on hand. It is selling the remainder of the originally authorized issue of preferred shares, ignoring Sayre’s demand to purchase a proportionate number of these shares. What are Sayre’s rights, if any?arrow_forwardMuller, a shareholder of SCM, brought an action against SCM over his unsuccessful negotiations to purchase some of SCM’s assets overseas. He then formed a shareholder committee to challenge the position of SCM’s management in that suit. To conduct a proxy battle for management control at the next election of directors, the committee sought to obtain the list of shareholders who would be eligible to vote. At the time, however, no member of the committee had owned stock in SCM for the six-month period required to gain access to such information. Then Lopez, a former SCM executive and a shareholder for more than one year, joined the committee and demanded to be allowed to inspect the minutes of SCM shareholder proceedings and to gain access to the current shareholder list. His stated reason for making the demand was to solicit proxies in support of those the committee had nominated for positions as directors. Lopez brought this action after SCM rejected this demand. Will Lopez succeed?arrow_forwardParker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to…arrow_forward
- The client seeks advice concerning the actions of the majority stockholder in a small corporation. The majority stockholder owns 58 percent of the stock, and the client and another shareholder together own 42 percent. The majority stockholder controls the board of directors and is president of the corporation. He refuses to allow the corporation to issue any stock dividends. Until recently, the client and the other minority stockholder worked for the corporation. Last month, the majority stockholder fired the client and the minority stockholder. What sections of Am. Jur. 2d discuss this topic?arrow_forwardIn Corporation Law, the application of the principle of “Centralized Management” has brought about the jurisprudential doctrine of --- Theory of Concession Business Judgment Rule Doctrine of Limited Liability. Ultra Vires Doctrine. SEC Opinion No. 04-43, dated 26 October 2004, held that a temporary or permanent cessation of operations of a corporation which does not involve the shortening of corporate term or a formal dissolution of the corporation, may be pursued by the Board of Directors only with ratification by stockholders owning or representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock, although not particularly governed by the Corporation Code, is in recognition, and implementation, of the --- Theory of Concession. Theory of Delegated Power Theory of Business Enterprise Doctrine of Strong Juridical Personality Whereas, a decrease of the authorized capital stock will not be approved by the SEC if the effect is to prejudice the rights of the creditors, and…arrow_forwardPritchard & Baird was a reinsurance broker. A reinsurance broker arranges contracts between insurance companies so that companies that have sold large policies may sell participations in these policies to other companies in order to share the risks. Charles Pritchard, who died in December 2011, controlled Pritchard & Baird for many years. Prior to his death, he brought his two sons, Charles Jr. and William, into the business. The pair assumed an increas ingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2008, Charles Jr. and William began to withdraw from the corporate account ever-increasing sums that were designated as “loans” on the balance sheet. These “loans,” however, represented a significant misappropriation of funds belonging to the corporation’s clients. By late 2013, Charles Jr. and William had plunged the corporation into hopeless bankruptcy. A total of $12,333,514.47 in “loans” had accumulated by October of that…arrow_forward
- Case D: Governance Corporation, Bl corporation, and Susan Schultz, president and principle shareholder of TBI, agreed to form a new corporation, Model Board. TBI and Governance were in the business of providing unique guidance formats and analysis tools for advising boards of directors on governance issues. Mark Schlussel was supposed to take care of the formalities involved in incorporating Model Board. When little progress was made in gaining financing for Model Board, Schultz announced that TBI intended to take on some business opportunities that Model Board had intended to pursue. Model Board sued TBI for interference with its business opportunities. TBI moved to dismiss on the grounds that Model Board had no capacity to sue because it had never been incorporated. Is a court that adheres to the historical approach likely to dismiss this suit because Model Board has no corporate existence? Explain.arrow_forwardhomas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…arrow_forwardSmith, a shareholder, filed suit against the board of directors of a corporation in which he had owned stock. Smith claimed that he and other shareholders had not received top dollar for their shares when their corporation had merged with another. Consequently, they sought either a reversal of the merger or payment from the directors to make up for their losses. The directors, Smith argued, had violated their duty of due care because they based their decision on a 20-minute speech by the CEO. Also, the directors had not even looked at the merger documents, let alone studied them. Furthermore, the directors had not sought any independent evaluation by outside experts. For their part, the directors argued that because their decision was made in good faith and was legal, they were protected by the business judgment rule. Were the directors correct?arrow_forward
- Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?arrow_forwardXavier and Ciara form a corporation to provide cleaning services to local businesses. After two years of trying to make a go of the business, the profits they had hoped for are just not there. Xavier and Ciara decide to dissolve the corporation and go their separate ways. To terminate the corporate entity, Xavier and Ciara must: Choose three. -Pay the corporate debts and distribute remaining funds to themselves -File articles of dissolution with the state -Seek a court order for dissolutoin -Vote to terminatearrow_forwardMarvie, Kim, Clarence, and Goldie Tschetter purchased units in Huron Kitchen LLC, a limited liability company, which would construct and own a Country Kitchen restaurant in South Dakota. As members of an LLC, they had management powers in proportion to their contributions of capital and could elect the managers of the LLC and set the managers’ responsibilities. As LLC members, the Tschetters agreed to hire Country Hospitality Corporation to do much of the operation of the LLC. The LLC Operating Agreement required that the day-to-day decisions were made by two managers, who were required to be members of the LLC and were selected by the other members. Members could authorize loans on behalf of the company by agreement. The members had the right to receive profits and distributions when warranted. The members could authorize incidental expenses within an aggregate of $12,500. The members were empowered to make any other routine actions incidental to the day-to-day activity of the LLC.…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education