Supreme Court of Delaware

Trial court's original judgment is affirmed where in defendant's attempt to get relief from a merger that deprived them of the value of their stock options, the disputed term "economic position" in Section XVIII.A of the 1994 stock option plan means the full economic value of the options, including their intrinsic value and time value.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/09/2009
• Published 03/09/2009

Judges

• BERGER, Justice for the majority., Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• A. Gilchrist Sparks, III, Esquire (argued) and John P. DiTomo, Esquire, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;  Of Counsel:  Todd C. Schiltz, Esquire, Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;  Michael L. Banks, Esquire and Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;  David W. Carpenter, Esquire and Kevin C. Pecoraro, Esquire, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for defendant below appellant AT & T Corp., Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire and Nathan A. Cook, Esquire, Abrams & Laster LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;  Of Counsel:  Miranda S. Schiller, Esquire (argued), Joshua S. Amsel, Esquire, Stefania D. Venezia, Esquire and Lauren B. Hoelzer, Esquire, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York for cross appellees.