Equity-Linked Investors, L.P. v. Adams
Delaware Court of Chancery
705 A.2d 1040 (1997)
- Written by Katherine Li, JD
Facts
Genta Incorporated (Genta) (defendant), a pharmaceutical corporation, was owned by preferred and common stock shareholders. The corporation was on the edge of insolvency. If liquidated, it would probably be worth less than the $30 million liquidation preference of the preferred stock. However, Genta had several "promising technologies" in research, and these technologies would bring in a large amount of money if they turned into commercial products. The Genta board tried to find new sources of capital to continue the business with a hope of developing commercial products from its "promising technologies." The board believed in good faith that securing additional capital was in the best interest of the common stockholders. The preferred stockholders, on the other hand, sought to cut their losses by liquidating Genta and distributing most of the assets to the preferred shareholders. Later, Genta borrowed on a secured basis about $3 million from a third party, allowing the corporation to purse its business plan for a further period. In exchange, the third party received warrants exercisable into half of Genta's outstanding stock. Equity-Linked Investors, L.P (plaintiff), one of Genta's preferred stockholders, brought suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenging the loan transaction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Allen, C.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
