141. In Ironite Products v. Samuels, where a major shareholder (Samuels) of Ironite sued, contending the bylaws had
been violated, the appeals court held that:
a. there was no fraud, the directors followed the rules, so he had no suit
b. while there was no fraud, the directors did not follow the bylaws properly, so the changes made to the
corporation would have to be reconsidered
c. the bylaws had been violated, so Samuels was due full fair market value of his shares
d. the directors violated their duty to the corporation so would be removed from control and Samuels would
take control of the company
e. none of the other choices
142. In Ironite Products v. Samuels, where a major shareholder (Samuels) of Ironite sued, contending the bylaws had
been violated, the appeals court held that:
a. the directors committed fraud and would be removed from the board and a new board would be elected
under court supervision
b. while there was no fraud, the directors did not follow the bylaws properly, so the changes made to the
corporation would have to be reconsidered
c. the bylaws had been violated, so Samuels was due full fair market value of his shares
d. the directors violated their duty to the corporation so would be removed from control and Samuels would
take control of the company
e. none of the other choices