Centaur Partners, IV v. National Intergroup, Inc.

582 A.2d 923 (1990)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Centaur Partners, IV v. National Intergroup, Inc.

Delaware Supreme Court
582 A.2d 923 (1990)

  • Written by John Caddell, JD

Facts

Centaur Partners, IV (Centaur) (plaintiff) held 16 percent of the shares of stock in National Intergroup, Inc. (National) (defendant). At its May 17, 1984 annual stockholder meeting, National amended Article Eighth of its articles of incorporation and Section 16 of its bylaws. The amended Article Eighth provided the following: the number of directors shall be set as provided in the bylaws, the number of directors shall not be less than three, the board shall be divided into three classes, and a vote of 80 percent of the shares of National shall be required to amend Article Eighth or any similar provision. The amended Section 16 of the bylaws provided the following: the size of the board of directors shall be set by the board, it shall not be less than three, the board shall be classified, and an 80 percent vote of the shareholders shall be required to amend or repeal this or any similar provisions. The proxy statements created for the meeting indicate that the purpose of these amendments was to prevent unfriendly takeovers of the corporation. In 1990, Centaur wished to increase the size of the board from nine to 15 members, and it proposed an amendment to Section 16 making that change and preventing the board of directors from further amending the bylaws regarding the size of the board. It filed a declaratory judgment action against National, seeking a ruling that a simple majority vote of the shareholders was sufficient to increase the size of the board. Centaur argued that the phrase “or any similar provision” in Article Eighth was ambiguous and therefore the principle of majority voting must control. The trial court ruled against Centaur, holding that the phrase was unambiguous and effectively created a supermajority requirement.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Walsh, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership