Logourl black
From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...

Shapiro v. Greenfield

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
764 A.2d 270 (2000)


Facts

Charles Shapiro (defendant) was a director and CEO of College Park Woods, Inc. (College Park) (defendant), along with his sister, Joan Smith, and son, Michael Shapiro (defendants). College Park purchased a large parcel of land in 1961. It developed a shopping center on the parcel which proved to be unprofitable. The board determined that College Park needed to redevelop the property into a much larger shopping center, and that a business partner was needed to accomplish this. After struggling to find a suitable partner, the board ultimately agreed to an arrangement with a joint venture in which Shapiro held a large interest. College Park conveyed title to the property to the joint venture in exchange for a 50 percent ownership interest in the joint venture. College Park would retain no management rights, but would also bear no risk if the project failed. Prior to approving the arrangement, the board called a special meeting of the shareholders to consider the transaction, and provided notice of exactly what was being considered. Marvin and Betty Greenfield (the Greenfields) (plaintiffs) were shareholders but did not attend the meeting. The attending shareholders approved the project unanimously, and the board thereafter ratified that decision. The Greenfields then sought to access corporate records concerning the transactions. The board provided some but refused others. The Greenfields sued College Park and its board members, seeking an accounting, damages, and appointment of a receiver, among other relief. They argued that Charles Shapiro had usurped a corporate opportunity. The trial court agreed, and further found that the transaction was not fair and reasonable to the corporation and that there were no disinterested directors. The board members appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Kenney, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 136,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 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.