In the Carmody v. Toll Bros., Inc case discussed in the text, the Delaware Court of Chancery analyzed the question of the legality of a dead-hand pill under Delaware law. In striking down the dead-hand pill, the court ruled that:
a. the directors appropriately used the dead-hand pill which guaranteed that majority shareholders in place before a hostile bidding attempt were entitled to vote to block any later proposed vote on a merger.
b. the directors appropriately used the dead-hand pill because directors are entitled to use any means necessary in order to block a hostile takeover.
c. the dead-hand pill violated the state general corporation law for a number of reasons including that it violated the directors' duty of loyalty.
d. the dead-hand pill, which could only be redeemed by directors in office after a hostile bidder gained control or by their designated successors, violated the state general corporation law because it prejudiced directors in place prior to the takeover.
c
You might also like to view...
What is the support value activity that provides employees with training, hiring, and compensation?
A. Human resource management B. Firm infrastructure C. Procurement D. Operations resource management
With reference to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which of the following statements is true about search warrants?
A) Evidence that is seized by a police officer without having a search warrant is permitted in court. B) To obtain a warrant to search, the property owner must have been previously convicted. C) The items sought must be described in the search warrant. D) A search warrant is issued by a senior police officer.
The management's primary goal is stockholder wealth maximization, which, translates into _____.
A. maximizing the value of the firm as measured by the price of its common stock B. maximizing the earnings per share of the stockholders C. maximizing the dividends received by stockholders D. maximizing the net income earned by the company E. maximizing the managerial compensation (incentives)
Connie and her fellow union employees went out on strike when the company refused to meet the union's demands for higher wages and better benefits. Shortly thereafter, the company began hiring permanent replacement workers. After a hard eight-month
strike, the union and the company reached an agreement. When the strike was over, Connie was upset that she was not given her job back. The replacement worker that took over her job was retained. She believes she has a legal right to her job, especially since she was a faithful employee for over 20 years. Is Connie right? Explain.