Speiser v. Baker

525 A.2d 1001 (1987)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Speiser v. Baker

Delaware Court of Chancery
525 A.2d 1001 (1987)

Play video

Facts

Health Chem (Chem) was a Delaware corporation. The public held 40 percent of Chem’s stock, Marvin Speiser (plaintiff) 10 percent, Leon Baker (defendant) 8 percent, and Health Med Corporation (Med) (defendant) 42 percent. Chem owned Medallion Corp. (Medallion), which owned 95 percent of Med’s equity in convertible preferred stock, representing 9 percent of the voting power. Medallion could convert its preferred stock to common any time, which would give it 95 percent voting power. After conversion, Med would be barred by Delaware law from voting. Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 160(c). Speiser and Baker each owned 50 percent of Med’s common stock. Speiser and Baker were Med’s only directors. Because of this circular ownership structure, Speiser and Baker had effective control of Chem, though they owned less than 35 percent of the company. Speiser and Baker’s relationship turned sour, and Baker refused to attend Med’s shareholder meetings. Without Baker, the company’s quorum requirement was not met. Speiser sued to force an annual meeting. Baker answered with a mingled counterclaim and affirmative defense, arguing that no meeting should be convened because Speiser would take control of Med in breach of fiduciary duties owed to other shareholders. Baker asked for a declaratory judgment that Med cannot vote its Chem shares. Speiser moved to dismiss Baker’s counterclaim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Allen, 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 743,000 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
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership