Crown EMAK Partners, LLC v. Kurz

992 A.2d 377 (2010)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Crown EMAK Partners, LLC v. Kurz

Delaware Supreme Court
992 A.2d 377 (2010)


Section 219(c) of Delaware’s General Corporation Law provided that only the record owners of a corporation’s stock—i.e., the owners listed on the corporation’s stock ledger—could vote in corporate elections. Many stocks in Delaware corporations were legally owned by the Depository Trust Company (DTC) on behalf of the DTC’s client banks and brokers. The banks and brokers in turn owned such stocks on behalf of their clients, who were the beneficial owners of the stocks. The beneficial owners were the persons or entities that paid for the shares and had the right to direct how the stocks should be voted and to sell the stocks. Corporate stock ledgers reflected DTC-owned stock as being owned by Cede & Co. (Cede), which was known as the street name. Typically, the DTC (the record owner) would provide omnibus proxies to the relevant banks and brokers, authorizing the banks and brokers to vote the DTC-owned shares. The banks and brokers would then transfer their rights to vote such shares to Broadridge Financial Services, Inc. (Broadridge). Broadridge would then distribute proxy-solicitation material and voting instruction forms (VIFs) to the beneficial owners. The beneficial owners would return their VIFs to Broadridge, which would vote the shares in accordance with the instructions of the beneficial owners. Crown EMAK Partners, LLC (Crown) (plaintiff) was embroiled in a battle for control of the corporation between two competing factions. As of December 19, 2009, Crown had two vacancies on its seven-member board. On December 20 and 21, one of the factions, Take Back EMAK, LLC (TBE), submitted sufficient shareholder consents to remove two directors and to elect three new board members with TBE candidates. Because incumbent board member Donald Kurz (defendant) supported TBE, TBE would control Crown’s board if the TBE consents were valid. However, due to human error that was not the fault of either faction, the DTC never provided its bank and broker clients with omnibus proxies regarding DTC’s Crown shares. Due to this failure, Crown argued that TBE’s shareholder consents for DTC-owned shares were invalid because only the DTC could vote those shares. The validity of the TBE consents was submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court, which was overseeing preexisting litigation between the parties. The vice chancellor ruled that the Cede breakdown—the DTC’s list of the banks and brokers for which it held Crown stock—was part of Crown’s stock ledger for the purposes of § 219(c) and thus that the TBE consents were valid. The vice chancellor also rejected Crown’s attack on Kurz’s acquisition of certain stock from Peter Boutros that Kurz voted in favor of TBE’s candidates. Crown appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Holland, 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 748,000 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 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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 748,000 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
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 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