Question
If within 60 days from the approval of corporation action by stockholders, the dissenting stockholder and the corporation cannot agree on the fair value of the shares, who shall determine the price of shares? *
Three disinterested persons, one named by the stockholder, another named by the corporation and the third chosen by the two whose decision by majority is binding and final
The dissenting shareholder
The Securities and Exchange commission
The Commercial Court
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by stepSolved in 3 steps
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides for: a. adjustment of debts of a municipality b. reorganization of a corporation c. liquidation proceedings d. adjustment of farmers' debtsarrow_forwardA limited partner is responsible for any debts of the partnership, regardless of whether he or she was directly involved in the transaction that created the debt.;True or Falsearrow_forwarddescribing a Limited Liability Company (LLC) business that would created. Indicate a specific provisions that would be include in the LLC's Articles of Organization.arrow_forward
- hi can i get help with these please?arrow_forwardParker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to…arrow_forwardhomas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…arrow_forward
- Little Switzerland Brewing Company was incorporated on January 28. On February 18, Ellison and Oxley were made directors of the company after they purchased some stock. Then on September 25, Ellison and Oxley signed stock subscription agreements to purchase five thousand shares each. Under the agreement, they both issued a note that indicated that they would pay for the stock “at their discretion.” Two years later in March, the board of directors passed a resolution canceling the stock subscription agreements of Ellison and Oxley. The creditors of Little Switzerland brought suit against Ellison and Oxley to recover the money owed under the subscription agreements. Are Ellison and Oxley liable? Why or why not?arrow_forwardDescribe the differences between a sole proprietorship, a partnership, and a corporation as business entities, including their advantages and disadvantages from a legal perspective.arrow_forwardThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) files suit against Yange Corp. under § 2 of the Sherman Act. To be successful, the FTC must prove that Yange Corp. possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and that the monopoly power was obtained by illegal means. The FTC has no direct evidence that Yange is using its power to control prices and restrict output. The FTC, therefore, must show that Yange Corp. has monopoly power indirectly, by showing that Yange Corp. has a dominant share of the relevant market and that there are significant barriers for new competitors entering that market. The FTC can calculate the market share that Yange Corp. has by: showing the total sales that Yange Corp. has ever had. × showing the net revenue that Yange Corp. had during their year of highest profits. looking at the company's sales compared against the total sales of the industry within a specific period. taking the total sales of the industry over one year, and comparing against industry sales over prior…arrow_forward
- When a corporation wishes to issue certain securities, it must provide sufficient information for an unsophisticated investor to evaluate the financial risk involved. Specifically, the law imposes liability for making a false statement or omission that is "material." What sort of information would an investor consider "material" pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934? Be sure to explain the Act and provide two recent case examples where material representation or omission amounted to securities fraud in violation of SEC Rule 10b-5.arrow_forwardAy-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. has filed a Subchapter S election under the Internal Revenue Code for taxation purposes. As you know, S corporations are allowed only a limited number of shareholders and, regardless of the number, certain types of entities, including other corporations, cannot be shareholders in S corporations. Carter wants to transfer his shares of Ay-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. to CarCor, Inc., a corporation that he and his brothers own. If Able, Baker, and Dennis want to preserve their Subchapter S election and, thus, block the transfer of Carter's shares to CarCor (without being stuck having to purchase Carter's shares themselves), which of the following transfer restrictions would best allow them to accomplish their goal?arrow_forwardDo corporate shareholders have an obligation to make certain that their business corporation acts in an ethical and proper manner in conducting businessarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios