1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.2d
  4. 970 A.2d
  5. 970 A.2d 166 (2009)
 

AT&T CORP. v. LILLIS

Nos. 490,2007, 459,2007.

970 A.2d 166 (2009)

AT&T CORP., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Charles LILLIS, Gary Ames, Richard Post, Frank Eichler, Robert Crandall, Lou Simpson, Pierson Grieve, Richard McCormick, Janice Peters, Pearre Williams, Roger Christense, Doug Holmes, Steven Boyd, Patti Klinge, Connie Campbell, Sharon O'Leary, Jim Taucher, Bud Wonsiewicz and Daniel Yohannes, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. AT&T Corp., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Charles Lillis, Gary Ames, Richard Post, Frank Eichler, Robert Crandall, Lou Simpson, Pierson Grieve, Richard McCormick, Janice Peters, Pearre Williams, Roger Christense, Doug Holmes, Steven Boyd, Patti Klinge, Connie Campbell, Sharon O'Leary, Jim Taucher, Bud Wonsiewicz and Daniel Yohannes, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. Charles Lillis, Gary Ames, Richard Post, Frank Eichler, Robert Crandall, Lou Simpson, Pierson Grieve, Richard McCormick, Janice Peters, Pearre Williams, Roger Christense, Doug Holmes, Steven Boyd, Patti Klinge, Connie Campbell, Sharon O'Leary, Jim Taucher, Bud Wonsiewicz and Daniel Yohannes, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees/Cross Appellants, v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., f/k/a AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Defendant Below, Cross Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Decided: March 9, 2009.

Reargument Denied: April 13, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

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.

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

BERGER, Justice for the majority.

This is our decision, after remand, in an action by former officers and directors of MediaOne Corp. (the "Option Holders") seeking compensation from AT & T Corp. for the full value of their options. The Court of Chancery originally decided that the applicable contract provision is ambiguous, and that the Option Holders' interpretation is correct. In reaching that conclusion, the trial court relied "heavily" on AT & T's admissions...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases