← All Authorities
United States no conflict ruleconflict of interest s175

Benihana of Tokyo Inc v Benihana Inc

906 A.2d 114 (Del. 2006)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtDelaware Supreme Court
Year2006
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A director standing on both sides of a transaction triggers entire fairness review, but the transaction will be upheld if it is entirely fair.

Key Principle

A director who stands on both sides of a transaction has a conflict that can trigger entire fairness review, but the transaction may still be upheld if it is entirely fair.

Area of Law

corporate

Related Cases

ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209

Directors breached their duty of care under s.180 Corporations Act by failing to prevent the company from providing inappropriate financial advice to retail clients.

Tornetta v Musk C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM (Del. Ch. 2024)

Board compensation decisions favouring a controlling stockholder require entire fairness review; subsequent stockholder ratification does not restore business judgment deference.

Slack Technologies LLC v Pirani 598 U.S. 759 (2023)

Section 11 of the Securities Act requires plaintiffs to trace their shares to the allegedly misleading registration statement; claims fail where shares cannot be so traced in a direct listing.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Benihana of Tokyo Inc v Benihana Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Benihana of Tokyo Inc v Beniha...