Opinion ID: 2156563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mays' Board Responds

Text: Mays, which was not a party to the section 220 action, was advised of the Court of Chancery's ruling. In response to that advice, the Mays board of directors formed a Special Committee consisting of four outside directors of Mays and delegated to that committee the responsibility for determining what action, if any, Mays should take. The Special Committee, advised by outside counsel, determined that the disclosure of proprietary, confidential information of Mays, that was not otherwise available to its public stockholders, would place Mays at a substantial competitive disadvantage and would be contrary to the best interests of Mays and its shareholders. The Special Committee, through counsel, advised Weinstein of its determination by letter dated June 8, 2004. [3]