Giuricich v. Emtrol Corp.
449 A.2d 232, 1982 Del. LEXIS 453, 34 A.L.R. 4th 1 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 8 Del.C. § 226(a)(1), a court may appoint a custodian for a corporation when shareholders are deadlocked and unable to elect successor directors, without requiring an additional showing of irreparable harm to the corporation or its shareholders.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and Continental Boilerworks, Inc. ('Continental') co-founded Emtrol Corporation, with plaintiffs providing technical expertise and Continental providing capital.
- Initially, Continental held 80% of Emtrol's stock and controlled the board of directors, while plaintiffs held 20% with an option to acquire more.
- After Emtrol became profitable, plaintiffs exercised their options, resulting in a 50-50 stock ownership split between the plaintiffs and Continental.
- Plaintiffs demanded that the board of directors be restructured to reflect the 50-50 ownership, but the existing Continental-controlled board refused.
- To solidify its control, the board expanded from five to seven members, appointing two relatives of Continental representatives to the new positions.
- At a special shareholder meeting called to elect new directors, the two 50% shareholder factions deadlocked, failing to elect any successor directors, which perpetuated the control of the existing board.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs petitioned the Delaware Court of Chancery (trial court) to appoint a custodian for Emtrol Corporation under 8 Del.C. § 226(a)(1).
- The Court of Chancery denied the petition, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not shown any injury to their vital interests or to the corporation.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the denial to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 8 Del.C. § 226(a)(1) require a showing of irreparable harm to a corporation or its stockholders before a court may exercise its discretion to appoint a custodian in a case of shareholder deadlock that prevents the election of successor directors?
Opinions:
Majority - Herrmann, Chief Justice
No. A showing of irreparable harm is not required to appoint a custodian under 8 Del.C. § 226(a)(1). The plain language of the statute permits a court to appoint a custodian when shareholders are so divided that they have failed to elect successor directors; it contains no other condition or prerequisite. The trial court erred by improperly applying the 'irreparable injury' standard from § 226(a)(2), which governs director deadlocks, to this shareholder deadlock case. The legislative history, including the 1967 amendment replacing the 'drastic' remedy of a receiver with that of a custodian, demonstrates an intent to create a more readily available remedy for shareholder deadlocks. Allowing an entrenched board to maintain perpetual control through a deadlock violates fundamental principles of corporate democracy and subverts the voting rights of 50% of the owners.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a crucial distinction between the remedies for shareholder deadlocks (§ 226(a)(1)) and director deadlocks (§ 226(a)(2)) under Delaware law. By eliminating the need to prove irreparable harm for shareholder deadlocks, the Court made it significantly easier for deadlocked 50/50 owners to obtain judicial relief. This holding protects minority or equal shareholders from being permanently frozen out of governance by an entrenched, self-perpetuating board. The decision also signals the court's willingness to tailor remedies, limiting the appointed custodian's power to that of a tie-breaker to minimize judicial interference in corporate affairs.
