Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp.

←

Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. (1994)
the Delaware Supreme Court

Syllabus

→

Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., Del. Supr., 651 A.2d 1361 (1995) is the leading case on a board of directors' ability to use defensive measures, such as poison pills or buybacks, to prevent a hostile takeover. The case demonstrates an approach to corporate governance that favors the primacy of the board of directors over the will of the shareholders. Warning: template has been deprecated.

783282Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. — Syllabus1994the Delaware Supreme Court

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Wikipedia article

SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

651 A.2d 1361

UNITRIN, INC., JAMES E. ANNABLE, REUBEN L. HEDLUND, JERROLD V. JEROME, GEORGE A. ROBERTS, FAYEZ S. SAROFIM, HENRY E. SINGLETON and RICHARD C. VIE, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. AMERICAN GENERAL CORP., Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

IN RE UNITRIN, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION

No. 418 Argued: December 6, 1994 --- Decided: January 11, 1995 --- Released for Publication February 3, 1995.

Richard L. Sutton, Esquire (argued), Thomas R. Hunt, Jr., Esquire, Alan J. Stone, Esquire, and Michael L. Vild, Esquire, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware; Kenneth R. Heitz, Esquire and David I. Gindler, Esquire, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, California, for appellants.

Rodman Ward, Jr., Esquire, Marc B. Tucker, Esquire (argued), R. Michael Lindsey, Esquire, Cathy L. Reese, Esquire, Joseph M. Asher, Esquire, and Herbert W. Mondros, Esquire, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, Delaware; Anna J. Rastor, Esquire, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, New York, for appellee, American General Corporation.

Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, and Norman M. Monhait, Esquire, of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware; Edward Labaton, Esquire (argued) and Ira A. Schochet, Esquire, of Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, New York, New York, for appellees, Unitrin Shareholders.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse