Grimes v. Alteon Inc.
Delaware Supreme Court
804 A.2d 256 (2002)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Alteon, Inc. (defendant) was a pharmaceutical company that specialized in cardiovascular drugs. Charles Grimes (plaintiff), a lawyer and investor, purchased large blocks of stock in small technology companies. Grimes and his wife held approximately 9.9 percent of Alteon’s stock. The President and Chief Executive Officer of Alteon, Kenneth Moch, told Grimes that Alteon was considering a private stock offering to raise funds. Grimes offered to buy 10 percent of any private offering, and Moch verbally agreed to let Grimes buy 10 percent of any private offering. However, Alteon’s board of directors never approved this promise, and the promise was not reduced to writing. Alteon later publicly announced a private offering, but it did not allow Grimes to participate. After the announcement, Alteon’s stock increased. Grimes sued Alteon for damages and specific performance of the alleged oral agreement between Grimes and Moch. Alteon moved to dismiss the case. Alteon contended that any agreement between Grimes and Moch was a right to purchase stock that, under Delaware law, must be approved by the board of directors in writing. Therefore, because this was an oral agreement that had never been approved by the board of directors, Alteon argued the agreement was invalid. The trial court agreed, and dismissed the case. Grimes appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Veasey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
