Cohen v. Calloway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Calloway

246 A.D.2d 473, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 473 (Cohen v. Calloway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Calloway, 246 A.D.2d 473, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered May 20, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss this shareholder derivative and proposed class action on the basis of documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proxy statement in issue demonstrates that the BlackScholes method of valuing the stock options that was proposed for defendant corporation’s nonemployee directors would not have been viewed by the reasonable investor as a significant part of the total mix of information in the proxy statement (see, TSC Indus. v Northway, Inc., 426 US 438, 449; State of New York v Rachmani Corp., 71 NY2d 718, 726-727), and indeed the significance of such method is so imprecise that its inclusion probably would have done more harm than good (TSC Indus. v Northway, Inc., supra, at 448). Moreover, as the IAS Court found, the misrepresentation alleged by plaintiff was not part of the mix of information offered to the shareholders for purposes of evaluating the currently challenged stock option plan. We have considered plaintiff’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andidas, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered May 20, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss this shareholder derivative and proposed class action on the basis of documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proxy statement in issue demonstrates that the BlackScholes method of valuing the stock options that was proposed for defendant corporation’s nonemployee directors would not have been viewed by the reasonable investor as a significant part of the total mix of information in the proxy statement (see, TSC Indus. v Northway, Inc., 426 US 438, 449; State of New York v Rachmani Corp., 71 NY2d 718, 726-727), and indeed the significance of such method is so imprecise that its inclusion probably would have done more harm than good (TSC Indus. v Northway, Inc., supra, at 448). Moreover, as the IAS Court found, the misrepresentation alleged by plaintiff was not part of the mix of information offered to the shareholders for purposes of evaluating the currently challenged stock option plan. We have considered plaintiff’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 473, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-calloway-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack