← All Authorities
United States Leading Case duty of care skill diligence s174

Cede & Co v Technicolor Inc

634 A.2d 345 (Del. 1993)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtDelaware Supreme Court
Year1993
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Once the business judgment rule presumption is rebutted by showing the board failed to inform itself, the burden shifts to the board to prove entire fairness.

Key Principle

Once the business judgment presumption is rebutted by showing the board failed to inform itself, the burden shifts to the board to prove entire fairness.

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 Cede & Co v Technicolor Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Cede & Co v Technicolor Inc