Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—D. Minn.: Target directors face derivative suit over holiday data breach
    • ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING—SEC ALJ censures and suspends Chinese units of Big Four audit firms
    • BLOG TRACKER—Noteworthy blog posts and other commentary
    • DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS—Del. Sup. Ct.: Directors not required to negotiate stock repurchase
    • DODD-FRANK ACT—Garrett plans legislation requiring Fed employees to disclose securities trading and designate Vice-Chair for regulation
    • ENFORCEMENT—S.D.N.Y.: Bidtoask.com founder arrested for ignoring SEC subpoenas
    • EXCHANGES AND MARKET REGULATION—Volcker Rule prohibitions may not end threat to financial stability says German Central Banker
    • FRAUD AND MANIPULATION—Senator Edward Markey ponders pyramid scheme by Herbalife, requests SEC investigation
    • INVESTOR EDUCATION—FINRA issues investor alert on IRA rollovers
    • JOBS ACT—NASAA cautions state legislatures about crowdfunding bills
    • RISK MANAGEMENT—SIFMA spotlights business continuity study
    • RISK MANAGEMENT—Study finds housing securitization insiders did not anticipate collapse
    • SEC NEWS AND SPEECHES—SEC posts staff appearances at PLI’s SEC Speaks conference
    • SECURITIES OFFERINGS—S.D. N.Y.: Securities Act claims in RMBS action not timely, but Illinois and Texas claims may proceed
    • STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES—2013 was busiest year for IPOs since 2007
    • SWAPS—CFTC certifies second “made available to trade” swaps determination
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Securities Regulation Daily Wrap Up, DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS—Del. Sup. Ct.: Directors not required to negotiate stock repurchase, (Jan 23, 2014)

    Law Firms Mentioned:DLA Piper LLP | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP | Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Arsht & Tunnell, LLP | DLA Piper | Lord Baltimore Capital Corporation | Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP

    By Anne Sherry, J.D.

    Common law does not impose any duties on directors of closely held corporations to consider buying out minority stockholders, the Delaware Supreme Court has held. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing likewise did not create any duty to ...

    By Anne Sherry, J.D.

    Common law does not impose any duties on directors of closely held corporations to consider buying out minority stockholders, the Delaware Supreme Court has held. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing likewise did not create any duty to negotiate a reasonable repurchase price. Susan Blaustein, a shareholder in the Thalheimer-family-owned Lord Baltimore Capital Corporation, tried to sell her stock back to the company but was offered approximately half of the net asset value (Blaustein v. Lord Baltimore Capital Corporation, January 21, 2014, Berger, C.).

    The Lord Baltimore shareholders’ agreement conditioned stock repurchases on approval of at least a four-member majority of the board of directors or shareholders holding at least 70 percent of outstanding shares. Nevertheless, Blaustein alleged that she was given verbal assurances when she purchased the stock that she would be able to resell it for full value after a ten-year waiting period. After waiting out the ten-year period, she attempted to resell the shares, but the board refused to offer anything better than a 52 percent discount from the net asset value of the shares.

    Blaustein filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery alleging promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The chancery court dismissed the complaint and refused to allow her to amend it to add direct and derivative fiduciary duty claims, and a direct implied covenant claim, against the Lord Baltimore Capital board. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the only protection available on the direct claims was the shareholders’ agreement, which gave the stockholder and company discretion as to whether to engage in a transaction and at what price. The derivative claim failed as a matter of law because Blaustein did not make a demand on the board and her futility allegations were conclusory.

    The case is No. 272.

    Attorneys: Peter J. Walsh, Jr. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) and Nicholas T. Christakos (Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP) for Susan M. Blaustein. S. Mark Hurd (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Lord Baltimore Capital Corporation. John L. Reed (DLA Piper LLP) for Louis B. Thalheimer.

    Companies: Lord Baltimore Capital Corporation

    LitigationEnforcement: DirectorsOfficers DelawareNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use