Smith v. Van Gorkom
|←Delaware case law||Smith v. Van Gorkom
|Opinion of the Court→|
|Smith v. Van Gorkom or the Trans Union case, 488 A.2d 858 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1985) is a landmark United States decision on a corporate directors' duty to stay informed and the application of the business judgment rule. The Court found that the directors of Trans Union, who approved a merger in minimal time and without seeking any expert advice violated their duty of care, breached their duty of care it owed to the corporation and could not seek protection of the business judgment rule.— Excerpted from Smith v. Van Gorkom on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.|
Supreme Court of Delaware
488 A.2d 858
ALDEN SMITH AND JOHN W. GOSSELIN, PLAINTIFFS BELOW, APPELLANTS, v. JEROME W. VAN GORKOM, BRUCE S. CHELBERG, WILLIAM B. JOHNSON, JOSEPH B. LANTERMAN, GRAHAM J. MORGAN, THOMAS P. O'BOYLE, W. ALLEN WALLIS, SIDNEY H. BONSER, WILLIAM D. BROWDER, TRANS UNION CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, MARMON GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, GL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND NEW T. CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS BELOW, APPELLEES.
Argued: June 11, 1984 --- Decided: Decided January 29, 1985 --- Opinion on Denial of Reargument: March 14, 1985.
William Prickett (argued) and James P. Dalle Pazze, of Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, and Ivan Irwin, Jr. and Brett A. Ringle, of Shank, Irwin, Conant & Williamson, Dallas, Tex., of counsel, for plaintiffs below, appellants.
Robert K. Payson (argued) and Peter M. Sieglaff of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, for individual defendants below, appellees.
Lewis S. Black, Jr., A. Gilchrist Sparks, III (argued) and Richard D. Allen, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, for Trans Union Corp., Marmon Group, Inc., GL Corp. and New T. Co., defendants below, appellees.
Before HERRMANN, C.J., and McNEILLY, HORSEY, MOORE and CHRISTIE, JJ., constituting the Court en banc.
||This page and licence template are being considered for potential deletion at Possible copyright violations. Please see the discussion there.|
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.