I. Agents and Employee A. Gay Jenson Farms v Cargill (Minn. 1981, p. 7) B. 370 Leasing v Ampex (5th Cir.

1976, p. 23) C. Watteau v Fenwick (1892, p. 26) D. Rest. (2nd) of Agency §8A, p. 29 E. Rest. (3rd) §2.06, p. 29 F. Liability of Principal to 3rd Parties: Servant vs Independent Contractor 1. Humble Oil v Martin (Tex. 1949, p. 43) 2. Hoover v Sun Oil (Del. 1965, p. 45) 3. Murphy v Holiday Inns (Va. 1975, p. 48) 4. Rest. (2nd) § 219 G. Tort Liability and Apparent Agency 1. Miller v McDonald’s (Ore. 1997, p. 54) H. Fiduciary Obligation – Duties During Agency 1. General Automotive v Singer (Wis. 1963, p. 79) I. Duties During and After Termination of Agency 1. Town & Country v Newbery (NY 1958, p. 83) II. Partnerships A. Partners v Employees 1. Fenwick v Unemployment Compensation Comm. (NJ 1945, p. 87)

p. UPA § 18. 150) 2.2. Owen v Cohen (Cal 1941. 1990. Page v Page (Cal. p. 140) 2. 92) C. 1961. Promoters and the Corporate Entity 1. p. 144) F. 179) 1. 180: III. Day v Sidley & Austin (DC 1975. 125) E. p. Partnership Dissolution – Right to Dissolve 1. Partnership Dissolution – Consequences 1. 105) D. p. p. 153 3. Partners v Lenders: Martin v Peyton (NY 1927. 91 B. Fiduciary Obligations 1. Pav-Saver v Vasso (Ill 1986. 158) G. Collins v Lewis (TX 1955. p. Prentiss v Sheffel (Ariz 1973. 164) H. Nat’l Biscuit v Stroud (NC 1959. Meinhard v Salmon (NY 1928. RULPA § 303(a) p. p. 161) 2. p. 153) 4. p. Expulsion: Lawlis & Kightlinger & Gray (Ind. Limited Partnerships: Holzman v De Escamilla (Cal. Nature of the Corporation A. Rights of Partners in Management 1. p. 1948. UPA § 801(5). p. p. Fiduciary Obligations .

262) F. 264) 2. p. Sea-Land v Pepper Source (7th Cir. 232) E. p. Shlensky v Wrigley (IL ’68. 184) B. 194) 3. 275) IV. p. 214) 2. Zapata v Maldonado (Del ’81. p. Martha Stewart Living (Del ’04. p. p. Limited Partnerships: Frigidaire v Union (Wash 1977. p. 223) 2. Role of Special Committees 1. Eisenberg v Flying Tiger (2d Cir ’71. 270) 3. 211) C. p. Auerbach v Bennnett (NY ’79. p.2. Directors . 1991. 238) 2. p. Marx v Akers (NY ’96. p. p. Cohen v Beneficial Indus Loan (’49. Oracle (Del ’03. 218) D. 243) 3. p. Dodge v Ford Motor (MI ’19. Duties of Officers. Demand Requirement & Demand Futility 1. 189) 2. Role and Purposes of Corporations 1. Grimes v Donald (Del ’96. p. Walkovsky v Carlton (NY 1966. p. Southern-Gulf Marine v Camcraft (La 1982. AP Smith v Barlow (’53. Limited Liability & Piercing the Corporate Veil 1. Shareholder Derivative Actions 1. 251) 4.

328 6. p. 328) B. 357) b) Zahn v Transamerica (3d Cir ’47. p. Cinerama v Technicolor (p. 336) 2. Francis v United Jersey Bank (NJ ’81. Legislative Response to Van Gorkom. Dominant Shareholders a) Sinclair Oil v Levien (Del ’71. p. p. p. p. 324) 5. p. 314) 4. Corporate Opportunities a) Broz v Cellular Info Systems (Del ’96. Kamin v American Express (NY ’76. Handout 3. Ratification a) Fliegler v Lawrence (Del ’76. p. 347) b) In re eBay (Del ’04. 370) c) Handout . 352) 4.A. p. p. Smith v Van Gorkom (Del ’85. 310) 3. Elements 2. Duty of Loyalty 1. 361) c) 5. Directors and Managers: Bayer v Beran (NY ’44. p. Obligations of Control: Duty of Care 1. 367) b) Wheelabrator (Del ’95.

607) 2. Stone v Ritter (Del ’06. 657) 4. McQuade v Stoneham (NY ’34. p. Abuse of Control 1. Duration & Statutory Dissolution 1. 396) V. Corporate Planning by Use of Employment Ks Outline. p.C. Corporate Control A. 623) C. 576) 2. 588) 4. Smith v Atlantic (MA ’81. 600) B. Good Faith: Oversight 1. Ramos v Estrada (Cal ’92. Alaska Plastics v Coppock (AK ’80. 595) 6. p. Mergers & Acquisitions – De Facto Merger Doctrine . Control 1. 640) 2. Wilkes v Springside Nursing Home (MA ’76. Pedro v Pedro (MN ’92. 647) 3. p. p. p. 592 5. p. Handout VI. p. Clark v Dodge (NY ’36. p. Ringling Bros v Ringling (Del ’47. Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales (NY ’89. Galler v Galler (IL ’64. Meiselman v Meiselman (’83. p. p. Control. 583) 3. 614) 3. p. Closely Held Corporations A. p.

753 . SEC & Poison Pills. p. p. p. Coggins v New England Patriots (MA ’86. p. Cheff v Mathes (Del ’64. Takeovers 1. 718) C. p. 745) 3. p.1. Unocal v Mesa Petroleum (Del ’85. Aftermath 3. Hariton v Arco Electronics (Del ’63. Weinberg v UOP (Del ’83. p. 733) 2. p. 700) 2. 698) B. Farris v Glen Alden (PA ’58. 691) 2. 712) 3. Freeze-Out Mergers 1. Rabkin v Philip Hunt Chemical (Del ’85.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful