Case Citation
Legal Case Name

HMG/Courtland Properties, Inc. v. Gray Case Brief

Court of Chancery of Delaware1999Docket #2525531
749 A.2d 94 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 149 1999 WL 504781

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Corporate directors breached fiduciary duties and committed fraud by engaging in self-dealing real estate transactions where one director, negotiating for the corporation, had an undisclosed buy-side interest, known to the other director.

Legal Significance: This case underscores directors’ stringent duty of loyalty, requiring full disclosure of conflicts in self-dealing transactions and triggering entire fairness review absent such disclosure or valid ratification.

HMG/Courtland Properties, Inc. v. Gray Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

HMG/Courtland Properties, Inc. (HMG) sold real estate to entities involving two of its directors, Lee Gray and Norman Fieber. Gray, HMG’s President and lead negotiator for these sales, secretly acquired a buy-side interest through Martine Avenue Associates (Martine), a partnership he co-owned with his sister, Betsy Saffell. Fieber, the disclosed buyer, was aware that Gray, or at least Gray’s family, had an interest in Martine and would participate on the buy-side. Neither Gray nor Fieber disclosed Gray’s conflict to the HMG board. The transactions involved the Wallingford property and the Grossman’s Portfolio, with prices based on 1984 appraisals. Gray actively concealed his interest, including by having Martine’s address on a partnership agreement listed as Fieber’s home and arranging for Fieber’s son to execute the agreement for Martine. Fieber also failed to disclose Gray’s interest, even after receiving documents confirming Gray’s partnership in Martine. HMG discovered Gray’s interest a decade later, leading to this suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did corporate directors breach their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and commit fraud by engaging in self-dealing transactions where one director negotiating for the corporation had an undisclosed buy-side interest, thereby requiring the transactions to be reviewed under the entire fairness standard?

Yes, Gray and Fieber breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did corporate directors breach their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and commit fraud by engaging in self-dealing transactions where one director negotiating for the corporation had an undisclosed buy-side interest, thereby requiring the transactions to be reviewed under the entire fairness standard?

Conclusion

This case strongly affirms that directors have an unremitting duty of candor Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost

Legal Rule

When a director engages in self-dealing, the transaction is subject to entire Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al

Legal Analysis

The court determined that Gray's undisclosed buy-side interest in the transactions he Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolo

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Directors breached loyalty and committed fraud where lead negotiator (Gray) had
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+