Haft v. Haft Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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
tl;dr: A father sold his son controlling stock in their family company, taking back a “lifetime” irrevocable proxy. When the son tried to revoke it, the court held the proxy was irrevocable because it was coupled with the father’s interests as a secured creditor and as the company’s CEO.
Legal Significance: Establishes that under Delaware law, an interest in maintaining one’s corporate office (e.g., as CEO) is a sufficient “interest in the corporation generally” under 8 Del.C. § 212(e) to support an irrevocable proxy, independent of any interest in the stock itself.
Haft v. Haft 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
Herbert Haft, founder and CEO of Dart Group Corporation, sold his controlling block of Class B voting stock to his son, Ronald, amidst a family dispute. The consideration included cash, a promissory note, and a “lifetime” irrevocable proxy granted by Ronald back to Herbert. This structure allowed Herbert to retain voting control of Dart. After their business relationship deteriorated, Ronald sent a letter to Herbert purporting to unilaterally revoke the proxy. Ronald then filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the proxy was validly revoked, or alternatively, that it would become revocable upon full satisfaction of the promissory note. Herbert counterclaimed, seeking to enforce the proxy’s irrevocability. The core of the dispute was whether the proxy was “coupled with an interest sufficient in law to support an irrevocable power” as required by Delaware statute. Herbert asserted two such interests: a security interest in the stock to secure payment of the note, and his ongoing interest as the CEO of Dart.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Delaware law, is a proxy that is expressly irrevocable rendered unenforceable if the holder’s only interests are as a secured creditor for the stock’s purchase price and his continued employment as the corporation’s CEO?
No. The proxy is irrevocable. The court held that Herbert Haft possessed 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under Delaware law, is a proxy that is expressly irrevocable rendered unenforceable if the holder’s only interests are as a secured creditor for the stock’s purchase price and his continued employment as the corporation’s CEO?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the scope of 8 Del.C. § 212(e), confirming that 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 exer
Legal Rule
A proxy is irrevocable if it states that it is irrevocable and 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 a
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that the proxy was coupled with an "interest 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.