Steinberg v. Amplica, Inc.
California Supreme Court
729 P.2d 683 (1986)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
David Steinberg (plaintiff), a minority shareholder in Amplica, Inc. (defendant), was fully aware of all the relevant facts surrounding Amplica’s upcoming merger with another company. Steinberg opposed the merger and believed that Amplica and others (defendants) involved in the merger offered insufficient compensation to buy back his shares. However, Steinberg took no legal action until the merger was completed. At that point, Steinberg filed suit, claiming damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court ruled that Steinberg’s only remedy was to demand a court-ordered appraisal to determine the fair market value of his shares. Steinberg appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.