Opinion ID: 2584011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue 2: Did the District Court Err in Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Unison on Count I Alleging Unison's Breach of the Stockholders' Agreement?

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying them summary judgment and in granting summary judgment in favor of Unison on Count I. In Count I, plaintiffs alleged that Unison breached the Stockholders' Agreement (1) by failing to exercise its option to purchase plaintiffs' shares or to notify other stockholders of their right to purchase the plaintiffs' shares, (2) by stating in a letter of February 2, 2000, from attorney Dolson that Unison would have the right to take the position that no signatory to the Unison Stockholders Agreement could transfer his/her shares to Gold inasmuch as such purchase would be the first `step' . . . by which Gold and its affiliates and principal holders would own more than 35% of the outstanding stock of Unison; and (3) by adopting the Rights Plan with the intent to preclude plaintiffs' sale of their shares to Gold. In denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the district court found that plaintiffs' agreement to sell their shares to Gold was conditioned upon Federal Reserve approval; therefore, Unison had no obligation under the Stockholders' Agreement to exercise its right to purchase the plaintiffs' shares at that time. Nor did Unison have any obligation to notify other stockholders of their right to purchase plaintiffs' shares. In granting Unison's motion for summary judgment on Count I, the district court ruled that there was no genuine dispute as to the breach of the contract by the defendant as pertains to Article II of the stockholders' agreement and that there was, in fact, no breach . . . . The court made no specific finding or ruling regarding plaintiffs' contention that Unison's adoption of the Rights Plan, or poison pill, constituted a breach of the Stockholders' Agreement.