Capital Group Companies, Inc. v. Armour
Delaware Court of Chancery
2005 WL 678564 (2005)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Capital Group Companies, Inc. (CGC) (plaintiff) was a privately-held Delaware corporation. Timothy Armour (defendant) was an executive vice president of a CGC subsidiary and purchased CGC stock as an employee. To purchase the shares, Armour was required to enter into a Stock Restriction Agreement (SRA). The SRA prohibited transferring either direct ownership or any interest in the CGC shares to nonemployees. For tax-planning purposes, Armour and his wife, Nina Ritter (defendant), created a revocable trust to purchase additional stock. The trust’s provisions required that CGC approve any distributions of the trust’s CGC shares. The trust also said that the shares could be repurchased by CGC if the shares were distributed to someone other than Armour upon the revocation of the trust. Finally, Armour and Ritter signed a joinder agreement, agreeing to be bound by the SRA. Subsequently, Armour filed for divorce. As part of the divorce, Ritter indicated that she was seeking: (1) an award of a direct or indirect interest in the trust, (2) one-half of any dividends received from the CGC shares and (3) one-half of any proceeds received from the sale of any CGC shares. After being made aware of Ritter’s requests, CGC sued Ritter and Armour seeking a declaration that the SRA prohibited any award of a beneficial or direct interest in the CGC shares to Ritter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lamb, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
