Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc.

Supreme Court of Delaware
813 A.2d 1118 (Del. Sup. Ct. 2003), 2003 Del. Lexis 5 (2003)


MM Companies, Inc. (MM) (plaintiff) began its efforts to acquire control of Liquid Audio, Inc. (defendant) in October 2001. The directors of Liquid Audio (defendants) rebuffed MM’s initial offer to purchase the company at $3 per share. Liquid Audio had a staggered board with five total members. In June 2002, MM launched a proxy campaign for the 2002 shareholders meeting. It nominated two candidates to fill the two board positions up for election that year, and also proposed to add four positions to the board and nominated candidates for those seats. If approved, MM’s proposals would have granted it control of Liquid Audio’s board. The shareholders’ meeting was scheduled for September 26, 2002. By mid-August, it became clear that at a minimum, MM would be successful in electing its two candidates for the open board seats. On August 23, Liquid Audio’s board announced that it had amended the bylaws to increase the size of the board to seven members, and that it had filled the new vacancies with two of its candidates. At the shareholders meeting, MM’s two candidates were elected, but the shareholders rejected its proposal to expand the board by four members. MM sued Liquid Audio and its five directors, challenging the August 23expansion of the board. MM argued that the expansion frustrated MM’s efforts to obtain a substantial presence on the board, and that it improperly interfered with the shareholder franchise. After a trial, the Court of Chancery found that the board had acted with the primary purpose of diminishing the effectiveness of MM’s two elected board members. The court also found, however, that the board expansion was a valid defensive measure under the Unocal test because it was reasonable in relation to the threat posed. MM 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 498,000 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 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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