Edwards v. Edwards

The court reviewed letters submitted regarding the scope of issues to be tried during the trial scheduled in this matter. Plaintiffs contend that two issues related to Count I of their Verified Complaint should be decided at that trial. Issue No. 1: Does the Stockholders Agreement provide that the price to exercise the Option is the purchase price of a bona fide, third party purchaser . . . (assuming arguendo the Option still exists), or is it some lower formula price as Peter consistently has maintained? Issue No. 2: Have the statements or conduct of [Plaintiffs] or anyone at the Company breached the Stockholders Agreement (or induced such a breach)? The court agreed with defendants' contention that plaintiffs have mooted all of Count I by conceding via letter that the Option has not been triggered by any “act, event, or occurrence” to date. To the extent that plaintiffs seek reargument of the May 10 ruling, such a motion is untimely under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f). View "Edwards v. Edwards" on Justia Law