LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

FIRST UNION CORP v SUNTRUST BANKS INC Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: FUCVSBI197484, CourtName: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: FIRST UNION CORP, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>FUCVSBI197484, Merger, Merger Agreement, Judgement, Provision, Shareholder, Directors, Standard, Review, Delaware, Transaction, Duty, Determination, First Union, Wachovia Corporation, Review Process, Deal Protection, Corporate Law, Option Agreement, Suntrust Banks, Consummation, Stockholders, Business Judgment Rule, Delaware Supreme Court, Corporate Governance, Counterclaim Defendants, Reasonableness, Chancery Court , ContentID: 120243673

Case Documents
1   ORDER-OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110111
45 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 45 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . ORDER-OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MERGER
MERGER AGREEMENT
JUDGEMENT
PROVISION
SHAREHOLDER
DIRECTORS
STANDARD
REVIEW
DELAWARE
PLAINTIFFS
BUSINESS
TRANSACTION
DUTY
DETERMINATION
FIRST UNION
WACHOVIA CORPORATION
REVIEW PROCESS
DEAL PROTECTION
CORPORATE LAW
OPTION AGREEMENT
SUNTRUST BANKS
CONSUMMATION
STOCKHOLDERS
BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE
DELAWARE SUPREME COURT
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS
REASONABLENESS
CHANCERY COURT
STATE  OF NORTH  CAROLINA                                   IN  THE  GENERAL  COURT  OF JUSTICE
                                                                 SUPERIOR  COURT  DIVISION
MECKLENBURG  COUNTY

FIRST  UNION  CORPORATION,
WACHOVIA  CORPORATION,
and FIRST  UNION  NATIONAL  BANK,

                Plaintiffs

       V.

SUNTRUST  BANKS,  INC.,

               Defendant.

       V.

FIRST  UNION  CORPORATION,  ET  AL.,

                Counterclaim  Defendants,            >                   Ol-cvs-10075
LESLIE  M. BAKER,  JAMES  S. BALLOUN,                ,'
PETER  C. BROWNING,  JOHN  T. CASTEEN,  III,  )
THOMAS  K. HEARN,  JR., GEORGE  W.                   >
HENDERSON,  III,  W.  HAY-NE  HIPP, LLOYD            )
U. NOLAND,  III,  JOHN  C. WHITAKER,  JR.,           )
and DONA  DAVIS  YOUNG,                              >
                                                     >
              Additional  Counterclaim  Defendants.  )

STATE  OF NORTH  CAROLINA                                   IN  THE  GENERAL  COURT  OF JUSTICI
                                                                SUPERIOR  COURT  DIVISION
FORSYTH  COUNTY

IN  RE WACHOVIA  SHAREHOLDERS                                             Consolidated
   LITIGATION                                                    Civil  Action  No.  0 1 -CVS-4486



         STATE  OF NORTH  CAROLINA                                       IN  THE  GENERAL  COURT 
                                                                             SUPERIOR  COURT  DMSION
         COUNTY  OF  GUILFORD

         HARBOR  FINANCE  PARTNERS,                                >
         derivatively  on behalf  of  Wachovia  Corporation,       )
                                                                   >
                            Plaintiff,                             >
                                                                   >
                    V.                                             >
SNIPPETS:
  • FIRST UNION CORPORATION, WACHOVIA CORPORATION,
  • Corporation and Wachovia Corporation, and SunTrust Banks, Inc.`s resulting unsolicited bid
  • SunTrust and the sharehol,der plaintiffs in the consolidated cases request that this Court
  • All parties request declaratory judgment with respect to validity of the Option Agreement.
  • for plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants First
  • maintaining the appropriate balance between shareholder power and board authority in corporate
  • The approach to these issues adopted by the Delaware courts since 1985 is now under rigorous
  • a short period of time in which to review this order and determine these complex and
  • The Court will then apply that review process to the facts in this case and determine if
  • Did the directors of Wachovia breach their fiduciary duty when they approved the
  • Two inconsistent conceptions have dominated our thinking about corporations since the
  • In the first conception, the corporation is seen as the private property of its
  • I call this the property conception of the corporation, because it sees the corporation as
  • Corporate law should help promote or enhance the creation of corporate value.
  • The clearest example of the variable pressure created by capital market structures is the
  • That freedom is achieved by protection from liability for good faith errors in judgment and
  • Professor Eisenberg has succinctly described the difference between standards of conduct and
  • In cases in which a director engages in a transaction with the corporation in which she has a
  • The fiduciary received the benefit of the business judgment rule with its divergent and less
  • h is also true that the North Carolina courts have frequently looked to Delaware for guidance
  • Unocal involved the reasonableness of a target company board's defensive measures.
  • 46 Undeterred, Pantry Pride continued its pursuit of the company.47 Subsequently, the Revlon
  •    |