(for the majority):
In this action attacking a statutory corporate merger, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Del.Ch., 367 A.2d 1349 (1976).
I
The litigation centers on a merger in July 1975 of The Magnavox Company (Magna-vox) with T.M.C. Development Corporation (T.M.C.). Plaintiffs owned common stock of Magnavox at the time of the merger and they bring this class action for all persons who held such shares on the day before the merger. Defendants are: Magnavox, North American Philips Corporation (North American), North American Philips Development Corporation (Development), and individual members of Magnavox management who held their positions in July 1975. All corporations involved are chartered in Delaware. T.M.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Development, which in turn is owned entirely by North American. Apparently, Development’s only function was to assist North American in the acquisition of Magnavox.
II
The salient facts appear in the complaint and in a stipulation of the parties.1 These develop the following scenario:
On August 21, 1974, North American incorporated Development for the purpose of making a tender offer for the Magnavox common shares. Prior to that time, North American and Magnavox were independent, unaffiliated corporations. On August 28, Development offered to buy all Magnavox shares at a price of $8 per share.
The tender offer included a statement informing Magnavox shareholders of Development’s intention to acquire the entire equity interest in Magnavox, and advising them of the possible effects thereof, including: (1) delisting of present or future Mag-navox shares by the New York Stock Exchange; (2) creation of an unfavorable market for the shares; (3) loss of information rights granted under Rules of the Exchange and under Federal securities law; and (4) depending on the number of shares acquired, the employment of other means of acquisition, particularly: “. through open market purchases, through a tender or exchange offer, or by any other means deemed advisable by it or whether to propose a merger, a sale or exchange of assets, liquidation or some other transactions . . . .”
The directors of Magnavox voted to oppose the offer on the grounds of price inadequacy, among other things, and so notified their shareholders by letter issued on August 30. The letter stated, in part, that the “Company was shocked at the inadequacy of the offer of $8 per share in relationship to a book value in excess of $11.00
In September 1974, the respective managements of Magnavox, North American and Development compromised their differences over the terms of the tender offer. They agreed to terms which included an increase in the offer price to $9 per share and, at the request of North American and Development, two-year employment contracts for sixteen officers of Magnavox (including some of the individual defendants) at existing salary levels. As part of the agreement, Magnavox withdrew its opposition to the tender offer. As modified, the offer was thus not opposed by Magnavox and, in response thereto, Development acquired approximately 84.1% of Magnavox’s outstanding common stock.
With Development firmly in control of Magnavox, the managements of those two companies, and of North American, then set about acquiring all equity interest in Mag-navox through a merger. In May 1975, Development caused the creation of T.M.C. for that purpose.
*972The directors of Magnavox unanimously agreed to the merger with T.M.C. and scheduled a special stockholders meeting for July 24, 1975, to vote on the plan. At the time of this action, four of the nine Magna-vox directors were also directors of North American, and three others each had an employment contract, referred to above, with Magnavox and an option to purchase five thousand of North American’s common shares, effective on the date of merger. In June 1975, the shareholders of Magnavox were given notice of the meeting with a proxy statement advising on the book value ($10.16) and merger price ($9.00) of the shares, and they were told that approval of the merger was assured since Development’s holding alone was large enough to provide the requisite statutory majority. The proxy statement also advised the shareholders of their respective options to accept the merger price or to seek an appraisal under 8 Del.C. § 262.
Magnavox had some 75,000 stockholders. All materials disseminated in connection with the tender offer and the merger had a point of origin outside of Delaware. About 225 tender offer documents were mailed into this State and some 75 proxy statements were mailed to Delaware stockholders (and about 150 payment checks were distributed within the State).
The meeting was held in Delaware as scheduled, the proxies were voted here, stockholder approval was given, and the merger was accomplished.2
******
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery alleging that: (1) the merger was fraudulent in that it did not serve any business purpose other than the forced removal of public minority shareholders from an equity position in Magna-vox at a grossly inadequate price to enable North American, through Development, to obtain sole ownership of Magnavox; (2) in approving the merger, at a cash price per share to the minority which they knew to be grossly inadequate, defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders; and (3) the merger was accomplished in a manner violative of the anti-fraud provision of the Delaware Securities Act. 6 Del.C. § 7303. Plaintiffs seek an order nullifying the merger and compensatory damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, arguing that: (1) their actions are expressly authorized by 8 Del.C. § 251, and they fully complied therewith; (2) the exclusive remedy for dissatisfaction with the merger is an appraisal under 8 Del.C. § 262; and (3) plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the Securities Act because they did not rely on any purported material misrepresentations, and because they lack standing to sue under the Act and status to maintain a class action.
The Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that: (1) the merger was not fraudulent merely because it was accomplished without any business purpose other than to eliminate the .Magnavox minority shareholders; (2) in any event, plaintiffs’ remedy for dissatisfaction with the merger is to seek an appraisal; and (3) plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the Securities Act because the proxy materials did not have a significant impact on accomplishment of the merger.
Ill
We turn, first, to what we regard as the principal consideration in this appeal; namely, the obligation owed by majority shareholders in control of the corporate process to minority shareholders, in the context of a merger under 8 Del.C. § 251,3 of *973two related Delaware corporations. It is, in other words, another round in the development of the law governing a parent corporation and minority shareholders in its subsidiary. Cf. Folk, The Delaware General Corporation Law, at 77-81, 331-336; Bal-otti, “The Elimination of the Minority Interests by Mergers Pursuant to Section 251 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware”, 1 Del.J. of Corp.Law 63 (1976).
A.
To state the obvious, under § 251 two (or more) Delaware corporations “may merge into a single corporation.” Generally speaking, whether such a transaction is good or bad, enlightened or ill-advised, selfish or generous — these considerations are beside the point. Section 251 authorizes a merger and any judicial consideration of that kind of togetherness must begin from that premise.
Section 251 also specifies in detail the procedures to be followed in accomplishing a merger. Briefly, these include approvals by the directors of each corporation and by “majority [vote] of the outstanding stock of” each corporation, followed by the execution and filing of formal documents. The consideration given to the shareholders of a constituent corporation in exchange for their stock may take the form of “cash, property, rights or securities of any other corporation.” § 251(b)(4). A shareholder *974who objects to the merger and is dissatisfied with the value of the consideration given for his shares may seek an appraisal under 8 Del.C. § 262.4
*975B.
In this appeal it is uncontroverted that defendants complied with the stated requirements of § 251. Thus there is both statutory authorization for the Magnavox merger and compliance with the procedural requirements. But, contrary to'defendants’ contention, it does not necessarily follow that the merger is legally unassailable. We say this because, (a) plaintiffs invoke the fiduciary duty rule which allegedly binds defendants; and (b) Delaware case law clearly teaches that even complete compliance with the mandate of a statute does not, in every case, make the action valid in law.
The last stated proposition is derived from such cases as Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., Del.Supr., 285 A.2d 437, 439 (1971) (which involved advancement of the date of an annual meeting, accomplished in compliance with the relevant statute) wherein this Court said that “. . . inequitable action does not become permissible simply because it is legally possible;” and from Guth v. Loft, Inc., Del.Supr., 23 Del.Ch. 255, 5 A.2d 503, 511 (1939), in which the Court, responding to an argument for a narrow examination of issues, said that “[t]he question [at issue] is not one to be decided on narrow or technical grounds, but upon broad considerations of corporate duty and loyalty.” We apply this approach and reject any contention that statutory compliance insulates the merger from judicial review.
C.
From this premise we must now analyze the encounter between the exercise of a statutory right and the performance of the alleged fiduciary duty. As we have noted, § 251, by its terms, makes permissible that which the North American side of this dispute caused to be done: the merger of T.M.C. into Magnavox. We must ascertain, however, what restraint, if any, the duty to minority stockholders placed on the exercise of that right.
Plaintiffs contend that the Magnavox merger was fraudulent because it was made without any ascertainable corporate business purpose and was designed solely to freeze out the minority stockholders. After a review of the cases, the Trial Court concluded that to the extent the complaint charges that the merger was fraudulent because it did not serve a business purpose of Magnavox, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Our analysis leads to a different result, not on the basis of fraud but on application of the law governing corporate fiduciaries.
The statute is silent on the question of whether a merger may be accomplished only for a valid business purpose, but two recent unreported decisions seem to suggest that such a showing is required under Delaware law. See Pennsylvania Mutual Fund, Inc. v. Todhunter International, Inc., Del.Ch.C.A. 4845 (August 5, 1975), and Tanzer v. International General Industries, Inc., Del.Ch.C.A. 4945 (December 23, 1975).5 *976Neither decision was by this Court and the issue is one of first impression here.
Any inquiry into the business purpose of a merger immediately leads to such questions as: “Whose purpose?” or “Whose business?” Is it that of the corporations whose shares are (or were) held by the minority? If so, it may well be that the business purpose of that company (qua company) is advanced by the merger, but that could be an academic result if the complainants (as here) are no longer shareholders because they have been cashed-out. On the other hand, if the corporation in which the complainants held shares “vanishes” in the merger, inquiry as to purpose may be unrealistic if not academic. And if the business purpose of the parent (or dominant) corporation should be examined (as defendants argue), minority shareholders of the subsidiary (or controlled corporation) may have undue difficulty in raising and maintaining the issue.
The point of this discussion is not that an exploration of the business purpose for a merger is without merit. It may well be necessary to examine that purpose in many mergers under judicial review. But as a threshold consideration in this opinion, it is not helpful in sorting out rights of the parties. It seems to us, rather, that the approach to the purpose issue should be made by first examining the competing claims between the majority and minority stockholders of Magnavox. That is what is really up for decision here, and so we look te the standards governing that relationship.
D.
It is a settled rule of law in Delaware that Development, as the majority stockholder of Magnavox, owed to the minority stockholders of that corporation, a fiduciary obligation in dealing with the latter’s property. Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., Del.Supr., 33 Del.Ch. 293, 93 A.2d 107, 109-10 (1952). In that leading “interested merger” case, this Court recognized as established law in this State that the dominant corporation, as a majority stockholder standing on both sides of a merger transaction, has “the burden of establishing its entire fairness” to the minority stockholders, sufficiently to “pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts.” See 93 A.2d at 109, 110. See also Bastian v. Bourns, Inc., Del.Ch., 256 A.2d 680, 681 (1969), aff’d Del. Supr., 278 A.2d 467 (1970); and David J. Greene & Co. v. Dunhlll International, Inc., Del.Ch., 249 A.2d 427, 430 (1968). The fiduciary obligation is the cornerstone of plaintiffs’ rights in this controversy and the corollary, of course, is that it is likewise the measure of the duty owed by defendants.6
Delaware courts have long announced and enforced high standards which govern the internal affairs of corporations chartered here, particularly when fiduciary relations are under scrutiny. It is settled *977Delaware law, for example, that corporate officers and directors, Guth v. Loft, Inc., supra, and controlling shareholders, Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., supra; Bennett v. Breuil Petroleum Corp., 34 Del.Ch. 6, 99 A.2d 236 (1953), owe their corporation and its minority shareholders a fiduciary obligation of honesty, loyalty, good faith and fairness. Other. cases applying that equitable doctrine include Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., supra; Kaplan v. Fenton, Del.Supr., 278 A.2d 834 (1971); Dolese Bros. Co. v. Brown, Del.Supr., 39 Del.Ch. 1, 157 A.2d 784 (1960); Johnston v. Greene, Del.Supr., 35 Del.Ch. 479, 121 A.2d 919 (1956); Italo-Petroleum Corporation of America v. Hannigan, Del.Supr., 1 Terry 534, 14 A.2d 401 (1940); Condec Corporation v. Lunkenheimer Company, 43 Del.Ch. 353, 230 A .2d 769 (1967); Craig v. Graphic Arts Studio, Inc., 39 Del.Ch. 477, 166 A.2d 444 (1960); Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 31 Del.Ch. 241, 70 A.2d 5 (1949).
The classic definition of the duty was stated by Chief Justice Layton in Guth, where he wrote:
“. . . While technically not trustees, . [corporate directors] stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation and its stockholders. A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate officer or director, peremptorily and inexorably, the most scrupulous observance of his duty, not only affirmatively to protect the interests of the corporation committed to his charge, but also to refrain from doing anything that would work injury to the corporation, or to deprive it of profit or advantage which his skill and ability might properly bring to it, or to enable it to make in the reasonable and lawful exercise of its powers. The rule that requires an undivided and unselfish loyalty to the corporation demands that there shall be no conflict between duty and self-interest. The occasions for the determination of honesty, good faith and loyal conduct are many and varied, and no hard and fast rule can be formulated. The standard of loyalty is measured by no fixed scale.”
5 A.2d at 510. While that comment was about directors, the spirit of the definition is equally applicable to a majority stockholder in any context in which the law imposes a fiduciary duty on that stockholder for the benefit of minority stockholders. We so hold.
******
Defendants concede that they owe plaintiffs a fiduciary duty but contend that, in the context of the present transaction, they have met that obligation by offering fair value for the Magnavox shares. And, say defendants, plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for dissatisfaction with the merger is to seek an appraisal under § 262. We disagree. In our view, defendants cannot meet their fiduciary obligations to plaintiffs simply by relegating them to a statutory appraisal proceeding.7
At the core of defendants’ contention is the premise that a shareholder’s right is exclusively in the value of his investment, not its form. And, they argue, that right is protected by a § 262 appraisal which, by definition, results in fair value for the shares. This argument assumes that the right to take is coextensive with the power to take and that a dissenting stockholder has no legally protected right in his shares, his certificate or his company beyond a right to be paid fair value8 when the ma*978jority is ready to do this. Simply stated, such an argument does not square with the duty stated so eloquently and so forcefully by Chief Justice Layton in Guth.
We agree that, because the power to merge is conferred by statute, every stockholder in a Delaware corporation accepts his shares with notice thereof. See Federal United Corporation v. Havender, Del.Supr., 24 Del.Ch. 318, 11 A.2d 331, 338 (1940). Indeed, some Delaware decisions have noted that to “the extent authorized by statute, . . . [mergers] are ‘encouraged and favored.’ ” Folk supra at 332. Beyond question, the common law right of a single stockholder to simply veto a merger is gone. Id. at 331. But it by no means follows that those in control of a corporation may invoke the statutory power conferred by § 251, a power which this Court in Havender, supra, said was “somewhat analogous to the right of eminent domain,” 11 A.2d at 338, when their purpose is simply to get rid of a minority.9 On the contrary, as we shall ultimately conclude here, just as a minority shareholder may not thwart a merger without cause, neither may a majority cause a merger to be made for the sole purpose of eliminating a minority on a cash-out basis.
E.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their respective fiduciary duties by participating in the tender offer and other acts which led to the merger and which were designed to enable Development and North American to, among other things:
“[Consummate a merger which did not serve any valid corporate purpose or compelling business need of Magnavox and whose sole purpose was to enable Development and North American to obtain sole ownership of the business and assets of Magnavox at a price determined by defendants which was grossly inadequate and unfair and which was designed to give Development and North American a disproportionate amount of the gain said defendants anticipated would be recognized from consummation of the merger.”
Defendants contend, and the Court of Chancery agreed, that the “business purpose” rule does not have a place in Delaware’s merger law. In support of this contention defendants cite: Stauffer v. Standard Brands, Incorporated, Del.Supr., 187 A.2d 78 (1962); Federal United Corporation v. Havender, supra; David J. Greene & Co. v. Schenley Industries, Inc., Del.Ch., 281 A.2d 30 (1971); Bruce v. E. L. Bruce Company, 40 Del.Ch. 80, 174 A.2d 29 (1961); and MacCrone v. American Capital Corporation, D.Del., 51 F.Supp. 462 (1943).
Each of these cases involved an effort to enjoin or attack a merger and each was unsuccessful. To this extent they support defendants’ side of the controversy. But none of these decisions involved a merger in which the minority was totally expelled via a straight “cash-for-stock” conversion in which the only purpose of the merger was, as alleged here, to eliminate the minority.
In Stauffer, a § 253 case, the Court carefully examined plaintiffs’ charges of majority oppression and concluded that the complaint alleged “nothing but a difference of opinion as to [the] value” of the converted shares. 187 A.2d at 80. Viewing the case in this light, the Court ruled that a statutory appraisal was plaintiffs’ exclusive medium of relief. We do not read the decision *979as approving a merger accomplished solely to freeze-out the minority without a valid business purpose.
Without question, Havender is an important opinion under our merger law, but we do not regard it as precedent here because the Merger Statute in effect at the time it was written did not authorize a pure cash-for-shares conversion. Moreover, Havender stands for the proposition that a merger must be “fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case” in order to withstand the veto of a dissenting shareholder. See 11 A.2d at 338.
Likewise, neither Shenley nor Bruce involved a “cash-out merger,” the sole purpose of which was to eliminate minority stockholders. Accordingly, those cases are inapposite. Any statement therein which seems to be in conflict with what is said herein must be deemed overruled.
We hold the law to be that a Delaware Court will not be indifferent to the purpose of a merger when a freeze-out of minority stockholders on a cash-out basis is alleged to be its sole purpose. In such a situation, if it is alleged that the purpose is improper because of the fiduciary obligation owed to the minority, the Court is duty-bound to closely examine that allegation even when all of the relevant statutory formalities have been satisfied.
Consistent with this conclusion is Bennett v. Breull Petroleum Corp., supra, wherein plaintiff alleged that the dominant shareholder caused the issuance of new shares to impair his interest and to force him out of the corporation upon management’s terms. At the outset the Court said:
“As a starting point it must be conceded that action by majority stockholders having as its primary purpose the ‘freezing out’ of a minority interest is actionable without regard to the fairness of the price.”
99 A.2d at 239. Thereafter, the Chancellor denied defendants’ motions for dismissal and summary judgment, ruling:
“It seems to me that plaintiff has set forth a legally recognized claim and the pleadings and affidavits have raised a substantial factual dispute as to the legal propriety of the motives of the corporate defendant and its controlling stockholder which can only be resolved by a hearing.” (Emphasis added.)
Id.
And in Condec Corporation v. Lunkenheimer Company, supra, the Court applied a similar approach in an action for cancellation of stock alleged to be issued for the purpose of retaining corporate control, stating that “shares may not be issued for an improper purpose such as a take-over of voting control from others.” 230 A.2d at 775. See Yasik v. Wachtel, 25 Del.Ch. 247, 17 A.2d 309 (1941). Quoting from the above language in Bennett, the. Court reaffirmed that the “corporate machinery may not be manipulated so as to injure minority stockholders,” 230 A.2d at 775, and ordered the shares cancelled.
Similarly, in Schnell v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., supra, this Court examined the purpose for advancement of the date of an annual meeting when it was allegedly done to perpetuate management in office. In ordering that the advanced date be nullified, Chief Justice (then Justice) Herrmann answered management’s claim that strict statutory compliance insulated its action from attack by saying “that inequitable action does not become permissible simply because it is legally possible.” 285 A.2d at 439.10
Read as a whole, those opinions illustrate two principles of law which we approve: First, it is within the responsibility of an equity court to scrutinize a corporate act when it is alleged that its purpose violates the fiduciary duty owed to minority stockholders; and second, those who control the corporate machinery owe a fiduciary duty to the minority in the exercise thereof over corporate powers and property, and *980the use of such power to perpetuate control is a violation of that duty.
By analogy, if not a fortiori, use of corporate power solely to eliminate the minority is a violation of that duty. Accordingly, while we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Chancery that this merger was not fraudulent merely because it was accomplished without any purpose other than elimination of the minority stockholders, we conclude that, for that reason, it was violative of the fiduciary duty owed by the majority to the minority stockholders.
We hold, therefore, that a § 251 merger, made for the sole purpose of freezing out minority stockholders, is an abuse of the corporate process; and the complaint, which so alleges in this suit, states a cause of action for violation of a fiduciary duty for which the Court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate under the circumstances.
This is not to say, however, that merely because the Court finds that a cash-out merger was not made for the sole purpose of freezing out minority stockholders, all relief must be denied to the minority stockholders in a § 251 merger.11 On the contrary, the fiduciary obligation of the majority to the minority stockholders remains and proof of a purpose, other than such freeze-out, without more, will not necessarily discharge it. In such case the Court will scrutinize the circumstances for compliance with the Sterling rule of “entire fairness” and, if it finds a violation thereof, will grant such relief as equity may require. Any statement in Stauffer inconsistent herewith is held inapplicable to a § 251 merger.
******
Accordingly, as to this facet of the appeal, we reverse.
IV
Finally, we consider plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Delaware Securities Act, 6 Del.C. § 7303,12 by issuing, through the proxy documents, false and misleading statements of material fact relating to the merger and by failing to disclose other material facts pertinent thereto.13
*981Defendants respond to the charges in two ways. First, they challenge plaintiffs’ standing to maintain a suit under the Act and, second, they argue that the Act is not applicable because Development held 84.1% of the Magnavox shares and thus, in fact, the proxy statements could not have had an impact on accomplishment of the merger.
The Chancery Court concluded that § 7308 must be read in conjunction with § 7323(a)(2)14 and that “to be actionable, the sale or purchase must have been caused by the false representation or the material omission in the statements offered to induce the sale or purchase.” 367 A.2d at 1361. Since Development’s interest was large enough to approve the merger regardless of how the remaining shareholders voted, the Vice Chancellor reasoned that plaintiffs failed to state a claim because there could not be a causal relationship between the proxy materials and consummation of the merger. The motion to dismiss was granted without reaching the standing issue.
The Securities Act became law in this State on July 1,1973 and this appears to be the first reported case construing it. In the view we take of the case, a detailed examination of its purpose or provision is not required. We note, however, that with some specificity the Act requires registration of securities offered or sold here, states that certain representations are unlawful, creates a registration procedure for broker-dealers and investment advisors, and provides for administration by the Attorney General or a designated Deputy.
But, detailed as the Act is, it does not include legislative findings as to purpose, nor are its objectives stated in even the broadest of terms. And so we must divine the Assembly’s intention from a reading of the statute as a whole. So viewed, we read the Securities Act as a Blue Sky Law governing transactions which are subject to Delaware jurisdiction under traditional tests. To state it another way, we do not read the Act as an attempt to introduce Delaware commercial law into the internal affairs of corporations merely because they are chartered here. Of course, a Delaware corporation is bound by the Act, if it is otherwise applicable. But it is not bound simply because the company is incorporated here.
There is, of course, a presumption that a law is not intended to apply outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State in which it is enacted. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1894); 73 Am.Jur.2A Statutes §§ 357-59; and that principle is applicable to a Blue Sky Law. Brocalsa Chemical Co. v. Langsenkamp, 6 Cir., 32 F.2d 725 (1929); McBreen v. Iceco, Inc., 12 Ill.App.2d 372, 139 N.E.2d 845 (1956); Gillespie v. Blood, 81 Utah 306, 17 P.2d 822 (1932); 69 Am.Jur.2d Securities Regulation—State § 8; 79 C.J.S. Supp. Securities Regulation § 189; 14 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations § 6742 (1975).
Plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania and were not solicited here. Nor does it appear that the contract was made in Delaware nor that any part of the “sale” occurred here. It follows that the Delaware Securities Act does not apply and that the judgment of the Court of Chancery was correct in so ruling.15
*982We are not persuaded that because the corporate merger vote was held in Delaware this is a sufficient connection with the alleged fraud to permit plaintiffs to invoke the Act. That is simply too fragile a basis on which to establish subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged fraud in Pennsylvania or over a contract made in New York. And plaintiffs’ arguments based on registration of the merger documents in Delaware, see 8 Del.G. § 103, and the statutory situs of the Magnavox stock in this State, 8 Del.G. § 169, are equally tenuous and we reject them for the same reason.
* * * * * *
As to this facet of the appeal, we affirm. * * * * * *
The judgment of the Court of Chancery is reversed in part and affirmed in part.