Shaev v. Armstrong, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID B. SHAEV PROFIT SHARING § § ACCOUNT, § § Plaintiff Below§ Appellant, § § v. § C. MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, ALAIN § § J.P. BELDA, KENNETH J. BAILKIN, § GEORGE DAVID, KENNETH T. § DERR, JOHN M. DEUTCH, ANN § DIBBLE JORDAN, ROBERT I. LIPP, § REUBEN MARK, MICHAEL T. § MASIN, DUDLEY C. MECUM, § RICHARD D. PARSONS, ANDRALL § E. PEARSON, JOHN S. REED, § ROBERT E. RUBIN, ROBERT B. § SHAPIRO, FRANKLIN A. THOMAS, § SANFORD I. WEILL, and ARTHUR § ZANKEL, § § Defendants Below§ Appellees, § § and § § CITIGROUP, INC., § § Nominal Defendant Below§ Appellee. No. 110, 2006 Court Below Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 1449-N Submitted: July 19, 2006* Decided: November 6, 2006 * After hearing this matter at oral argument on July 19, 2006, the Court stayed further consideration of the appeal pending the issuance of the Court s decision in Stone v. Ritter, No. 93, 2006. Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 6th day of November 2006, after careful consideration of the parties briefs and oral argument on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of both the Court of Chancery s well-reasoned opinion dated February 13, 2006 and this Court s recent opinion in Stone v. Ritter, Del. Supr., No. 93, 2006, Holland, J. (Nov. 6, 2006). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.