From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Batze v. Safeway, Inc.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.
May 3, 2017
11 Cal.App.5th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

No. B258732.

05-03-2017

GARY BATZE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAFEWAY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.


[Modification of opinion (10 Cal.App.5th 927; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.]

THE COURT. — IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed April 12, 2017, be modified as follows: (1) On page 14, footnote 9 [10 Cal.App.5th 935, advance report, in nonpub part], replace the sentence "We note that the plain language of the stock option agreements calls into question the existence of any right to challenge the valuation." with the following:

"We note that the plain language of the stock option agreements provided only a limited basis to challenge Applied's valuation: the agreements specified the Compensation Committee's good faith determination `shall be conclusive and binding.'"

(2) On page 20 [10 Cal.App.5th 938, advance report, 2d full par., lines 15-17], the following sentence is deleted: "Moreover, it is not clear whether Thomas possessed the stock certificates; that is not a subject addressed in the parties' statements of undisputed facts."

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

Batze v. Safeway, Inc.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.
May 3, 2017
11 Cal.App.5th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

Batze v. Safeway, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GARY BATZE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAFEWAY, INC., et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

Date published: May 3, 2017

Citations

11 Cal.App.5th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)