Mayer v. Adams
Delaware Supreme Court
141 A.2d 458, 38 Del. Ch. 298 (1958)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
Lillie S. Mayer (plaintiff), a stockholder of Phillips Petroleum Company (PPC) (defendant), brought an action in the court of chancery for alleged fraud and other wrongdoing committed by PPC directors in dealings with Ada Oil Company (Ada) (defendant), a company in which one of the PPC directors was alleged to have a majority stock interest. Mayer’s amended complaint alleged that demand on PPC directors would be futile. The futility alleged in the amended complaint was not challenged. Mayer’s amended complaint also alleged an excuse for not making a demand on PPC stockholders: the action was for fraud, which could never be ratified by a majority of stockholders, and it would be oppressive and unreasonable to require minority stockholders to circularize more than 100,000 stockholders in a proxy fight with management, which would ultimately result in a futile proceeding. PPC and Ada moved to dismiss Mayer’s amended complaint, claiming Mayer’s grounds to excuse not making a demand on PPC stockholders were insufficient. PPC and Ada alleged that if directors are disqualified, demand for an action must be made on the stockholders to determine the direction of the claim and merits. The judge held that demand on the PPC stockholders would not have been futile and dismissed Mayer’s amended complaint. Mayer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Southerland, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.