Shocking Technologies, Inc. v. Kosowsky
Delaware Court of Chancery
2012 WL 4482838 (2012)
Shocking Technologies, Inc. (STI) was in financial trouble, but had one last chance at a potential investor in Dickinson. Without Dickinson’s investment, the company would be in dire financial straits. Despite this, Simon Michael, an STI director, thought it would be better for him as a director and for STI as a whole in the long run if Dickinson did not invest as planned. Michael gave Dickinson confidential company information in the hopes that it would persuade Dickinson not to invest. Michael was sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of his fiduciary duty of loyalty.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Noble, J.)
What to do next…
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 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.