Grimes v. Alteon, Inc. Case Brief

Supreme Court of Delaware2002Docket #1979477
804 A.2d 256 2002 Del. LEXIS 463 2002 WL 1608466

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: An oral agreement between a CEO and a stockholder for the stockholder to purchase 10% of a future stock offering, without board approval or a written instrument, was held unenforceable under Delaware corporate law, which requires both for such commitments.

Legal Significance: Reinforces Delaware’s policy requiring formal board approval and written instruments for stock issuance and related rights, ensuring board authority over capital structure and certainty for investors.

Grimes v. Alteon, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Charles L. Grimes, a significant stockholder in Alteon, Inc., alleged an oral agreement with Alteon’s CEO, Kenneth I. Moch. Moch purportedly promised Grimes the opportunity to purchase 10% of any future private stock offering to prevent dilution of Grimes’s existing 9.9% holdings, and Grimes, in return, orally promised to buy said 10%. This alleged bilateral agreement was never memorialized in a written instrument, nor was it ever presented to or approved by Alteon’s board of directors. Subsequently, Alteon publicly announced a private placement stock offering but did not permit Grimes to participate. Grimes filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking specific performance and damages, asserting the enforceability of the oral agreement. Alteon moved to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that the agreement constituted a “right” under 8 Del. C. § 157 and was thus invalid due to the lack of board approval and a writing. The Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is an alleged oral agreement between a corporation’s CEO and a stockholder, obligating the corporation to sell and the stockholder to buy a percentage of a future stock offering, enforceable under Delaware law when it lacks board of directors’ approval and is not memorialized in a written instrument?

No. The alleged oral agreement is unenforceable. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Is an alleged oral agreement between a corporation’s CEO and a stockholder, obligating the corporation to sell and the stockholder to buy a percentage of a future stock offering, enforceable under Delaware law when it lacks board of directors’ approval and is not memorialized in a written instrument?

Conclusion

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory formalities, specifically Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com

Legal Rule

Under the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), particularly 8 Del. C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut

Legal Analysis

The Court reasoned that the DGCL establishes a comprehensive statutory framework designed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An oral agreement by a CEO to sell a stockholder 10%
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial