Los Angeles Fisheries v Crook
(9th Circuit 1931)
- Issuance of stock didn't depend on
delivery of a stock certificate
- Stock subscription had been accepted and paid for
- Delaware corporation
Joseph
E Seagram & Sons v Conoco
(D Del 1981)
- "... well settled principle of Delaware law that
a
certificate of stock is only evidence of share ownership
and is not the stock itself"
- At
page
513
Norton v Digital Applications
(Del Ch 1973)
- "A person may be a stockholder without having in
hand a certificate evidencing stock ownership."
- At note 1
Bender v Memory Metals
(Del Ch 1986)
- Shareholder was entitled to a reissued
certificate
without a restrictive Rule 144 legend
- Court invoked DGCL § 158 and UCC 8-401
- At
page 1115
Lynam v Gallagher
(Del 1987)
- Court rejected "wife's argument that the WTC
stock certificates husband received through the stock dividends constitute[d]
"new" property acquired during the parties' marriage"
- "Stock certificates are mere evidence of
property"
- At page 883
Graham v Commercial Credit
(Del Ch 1963)
aff'd
(Del 1964)
- Upheld by-law that required "giving of a bond of
indemnity" by the shareholder for reissue of a lost stock certificate
- Distinguished case where certificate was lost
before mailed
- Here certificate was delivered to shareholder's
residence
- Also see Mastellone v Argo Oil (Del 1951)
Scott
v Ametek
(Del Ch 1971)
- Discusses interplay of DGCL §167 and UCC §405(2)
- Also addresses jurisdiction of Delaware Chancery
Merrill
Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith v North European Oil Royalty Trust (Del
1985)
- Discusses requirements of UCC 8-405(2)
for reissuing lost securities
Castro v ITT (Del Ch 1991)
- Notes inconsistency between requirements of
DGCL and Delaware UCC
- At page 682
Covers
DGCL provisions about stock certificates 
