10.07.2015 Views

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

since 2002 have as <strong>the</strong>ir sole purpose <strong>the</strong> destruction of shareholder voting rights and <strong>the</strong>prevention of meaningful challenges to board control by <strong>the</strong> Investment Manager 4 and itsaffiliates. Plaintiffs fur<strong>the</strong>r allege that <strong>the</strong> Investment Manager is motivated to control <strong>the</strong> boardin order to protect its lucrative fees as a return on its $425,000 purchase of <strong>the</strong> investmentadvisory agreement.The remaining by-law amendments which plaintiffs seek to have declared null andvoid can be characterized as “qualification” and/or “supermajority” by-laws, as well as a by-lawpurporting to limit judicial review of board election results. Plaintiffs contend that <strong>the</strong>se by-lawamendments constitute unlawful interference with <strong>the</strong> shareholder franchise and a violation of<strong>the</strong> board’s fiduciary duties as prescribed by Maryland law.On <strong>the</strong>se issues <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> is not helped particularly by <strong>the</strong> parties’ opposinginterpretations of Maryland’s statutory scheme <strong>for</strong> electing and qualifying directors. Bothpositions beg <strong>the</strong> question. Plaintiffs cite § 2-404(b)(1)(i) to assert that <strong>the</strong> determination ofdirector qualification arises only after <strong>the</strong>ir election. Defendants cite § 2-403 to support <strong>the</strong>ircontention that director qualifications are properly established by charter or, as in this case, bycorporate by-law. But <strong>the</strong> Complaint alleges that, <strong>the</strong>se matters notwithstanding, <strong>the</strong>“qualification” by-law, <strong>the</strong> “supermajority” by-law and <strong>the</strong> “judicial review” by-law, as amended,are unreasonable and impermissibly impact shareholder voting rights. (Compl. 34-37 and 52-54.)4Since July 12, 2002 <strong>the</strong> company’s investment manager has been CEF Advisors, Inc.Defendant Winmill serves as President of CEF Advisors, Inc., which is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Winmill & Co., Inc., a publicly-owned company, whose voting stock is controlledby Winmill’s family. (Compl. 8, 14 & 15.)8

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!