Opinion ID: 1921994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Entire Consent Solicitation

Text: The Complaint challenged the adequacy of disclosures to GM's stockholders in the Consent Solicitation. When a complaint partially quotes or characterizes what a disclosure document says, a defendant is entitled to show the trial court the actual language or the complete context in which it was used. [30] Similarly, where a complaint alleges the omission of some material fact, a defendant is entitled to show that the disclosure was made in the document. [31] Therefore, the Court of Chancery properly considered the entire contents of the Consent Solicitation in determining whether the allegations in the Complaint stated a claim that the document was materially misleading. [32] The Court of Chancery was not obligated to accept as true allegations that misstated or mischaracterized the entire Consent Solicitation. [33] It is well established that a claim may be dismissed if allegations in the complaint or in the exhibits incorporated into the complaint effectively negate the claim as a matter of law. [34] Without the ability to consider the document at issue in its entirety, `complaints that quoted only selected and misleading portions of such documents could not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) even though they would be doomed to failure.' [35] The Court of Chancery properly applied these standards when it considered the entire Consent Solicitation in this proceeding. [36]