Held. No. The vote was inappropriately affected by an explicit threat of Mr. Briskin therefore the amendments to Arden’s restated certificate of incorporation purportedly authorized by that vote are voidable.
As a director and officer Briskin has a duty to act with complete loyalty to the interests of the corporation and its shareholders. His position in demanding the amendments under threat of thwarting corporate transactions is inconsistent with that obligation. The stockholder vote was fatally flawed by the threats. Shareholders were inappropriately placed in a position in which they were told that if they refused to vote affirmatively Briskin would not support future transactions that might be beneficial to the corporation. A vote of the shareholders under such circumstances cannot satisfy the mandate of Section 242(b) requiring shareholder consent to charter amendments. Black Letter Law:
to view the black letter law, scroll down to the LexisNexis Headnotes of this case. What’s a headnote?