Case Citation
Legal Case Name

LEHRMAN v. COHEN Case Brief

Supreme Court of Delaware1966
222 A.2d 800

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

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Two family factions in a corporation created a new class of stock with a single share, whose only right was to elect a tie-breaking fifth director. The court upheld this arrangement, finding it was not an illegal voting trust but a validly created class of stock under Delaware law.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies the distinction between a valid class of voting stock and an illegal voting trust. It affirms that under Delaware law, a corporation can create stock with voting rights but no significant economic interest to serve a purpose like breaking director deadlocks.

LEHRMAN v. COHEN 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

Giant Food Inc. was equally controlled by the Lehrman and Cohen families, each owning a class of stock (AL and AC) that elected two directors to a four-member board. To prevent potential deadlocks and resolve an internal family dispute, the stockholders unanimously amended the certificate of incorporation to create a new class of stock, Class AD. This class consisted of a single share with a $10 par value, entitled to elect a fifth director. The AD share had no rights to dividends or liquidation proceeds beyond the return of its par value. The share was issued to the company’s counsel, Joseph Danzansky, who served as the fifth director for over a decade. A dispute arose when the Cohen faction and Danzansky voted to give Danzansky a lucrative employment contract as company president, over the objection of the Lehrman directors. Jacob Lehrman sued, claiming the Class AD stock arrangement was a disguised, illegal voting trust because it exceeded the statutory ten-year limit and improperly separated voting power from economic ownership.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the creation of a distinct class of stock, possessing voting rights to elect a tie-breaking director but lacking significant proprietary interests, constitute an illegal voting trust under the Delaware Voting Trust Statute?

No. The Class AD stock arrangement is not a voting trust. The 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. Ex

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Does the creation of a distinct class of stock, possessing voting rights to elect a tie-breaking director but lacking significant proprietary interests, constitute an illegal voting trust under the Delaware Voting Trust Statute?

Conclusion

The decision provides a blueprint for using a corporation's capital structure to 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 exercit

Legal Rule

An arrangement constitutes a voting trust only if it meets three criteria: 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 of

Legal Analysis

The court applied the three-part test for a voting trust established in 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

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A stock structure that dilutes voting power by creating a new
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. Lor

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?