Smith v Van Gorkom
The court held that approving a cash-out merger without adequate information, a fairness opinion, or a meaningful deliberative process amounted to grossly deficient board decision-making and became a landmark duty-of-care case.
Holding
The court held that approving a cash-out merger without adequate information, a fairness opinion, or a meaningful deliberative process amounted to grossly deficient board decision-making and became a landmark duty-of-care case.
Issues
duty of caremerger approval processbusiness judgment rule