Glassman v. Unocal Exploration Corp. (Del. 2001)

The most basic facts of this case are similar to those in Weinberger: parent attempts a cash-out merger, or squeeze out; minority stockholders of the subsidiary complain.

Questions:

Why is the outcome in this case different from Weinberger?
What is the practical difference in this case and going forward - can't plaintiffs get the same remedy in an appraisal action?
If there is a practical difference, does it make sense from a policy perspective?
The Glassman court's reasoning puts much weight on the ostensible incompatibility of DGCL 253 and entire fairness review. Are they truly incompatible, or can you think of a different way to reconcile them?

Delaware Supreme Court

777 A.2d 242

No. 390, 2000

2001-07-25

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.