Was Amylin “vindicated” by yesterdays ruling by the Delaware court?
It is true that Vice Chancellor Lamb agreed with the interpretation of Amylin’s “poison put” as advanced by both the San Antonio Pension Fund and Amylin (and first articulated by Eastbourne in our letters to the Board) that the Amylin Board had the power to avoid the “poison put” by approving our and Icahn’s nominees. But in fact the judge refused to rule on the request, made by both the Fund and Amylin, that he find the Board’s agreement, as part of its settlement, to approve our nominees was proper. Why? The opinion, which Amylin has chosen not to file, makes interesting reading even for non-lawyers. Although he didn’t have the facts to rule one way or the other, the judge wrote that the circumstances under which the board agreed to grant its approval “at least raise a question whether the board’s decision to approve was made in a good faith exercise of its considered business judgment, or instead taken simply to avoid facing a suit for money damages against themselves personally.” T
Related Questions
- Does the Bush campaign have any additional avenues to challenge the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that the manual recount results should be included in the final counts?
- Will Tobacco Personal Injury Lawsuits Ignite Following Recent California Supreme Court Ruling?
- How will the recent California Supreme Court ruling affect my resident status?
