Opinion ID: 2275517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chancery Court Denies Relief

Text: Following discovery and each parties' submission of a pretrial brief, a trial was held on October 21, 2002. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the Board expansion did not violate Delaware law under either Blasius or Unocal. The Court of Chancery rejected the plaintiff's independent Blasius claim on the basis that the addition of two new directors did not impact the shareholder vote or the shareholder choices in any significant way. The Court of Chancery rejected the plaintiff's Unocal claim, on the basis that: plaintiff did not contend that the board expansion was coercive, the expansion was not preclusive, because the choices that the shareholders had before the board action was taken were the same as they had after, and the plaintiff failed to make a showing that the action that the board took falls outside a range of reasonable responses. Following the entry of the final judgment, MM filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Expedited Scheduling. The motion was granted by this Court. Oral argument was held on December 3, 2002.