Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

In re The Limited, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery
2002 WL 537692


Leslie Wexner (defendant) was the founder, president, CEO, and chairman of The Limited, Inc. In 1996, The Limited entered into a redemption agreement with a trust controlled by Leslie Wexner. Under the agreement the trust could compel The Limited to redeem some or all of its stock at $18.75 per share, or, after 2005, The Limited could repurchase the shares at $25 per share. In 1999, The Limited announced a plan to repurchase a large number of outstanding shares at $50 to $55 per share. Leslie Wexner and the trust agreed not to participate in the repurchase plan. However, at the same time the repurchase plan was announced, the board also agreed to rescind the redemption agreement it had entered into with the trust. Rochelle Phillips, Miriam Shapiro, and Peter Sullivan (the Shareholders) (plaintiffs) owned stock in The Limited. Without first making a demand on the board of directors, the Shareholders filed a derivative action against the company and each director. Their complaint alleged that the repurchase plan and the rescission of the redemption agreement constituted corporate waste and a breach of the duties of care and loyalty. The 12-member board of directors also included Wexner’s wife Abigail Wexner (defendant); Donald Shackleford (defendant), who was also a director of a subsidiary corporation of The Limited; David Kollar (defendant), the principal of a company which earned $400,000 annually from The Limited for providing music to its stores; Kenneth Gilman, Martin Trust, and Leonard Schlesinger (defendants), employees or contractors of The Limited, earning $1.8 million, $1.8 million, and $150,000 annually from the company respectively; and E. Gordon Gee (defendant), president of The Ohio State University, who successfully solicited a $25 million donation from Leslie Wexner. The board members moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to properly make a demand on the board prior to bringing a derivative action, and for failure to state a claim

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Noble, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial