A group of about 20 shareholders for the Fly High Corporation, a multinational airline, sued the CEO of Fly High, Chelsea Edinburgh, for failing to disclose that she had relations with the officers at one of the rivaling airlines, Delta Airlines. Chelsea had recently shut down several flight routes that were not creating the revenue flows that Chelsea desired. This decision had received the majority of shareholder approval during a vote. However, the 20 shareholders alleged in court that Chelsea had violated her duty to disclose the fact that she had a conflict of interest in that Delta Airlines' CEO was one of Chelsea's college classmates, and Delta Airlines would continue to operate the flight routes that Fly High had just shut down. The court ruled in favor of Chelsea, however, concluding that Chelsea had acted consistent with the shareholders' vote and in good faith.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the outcome of the case.

Check All That Apply

• Instead of being an old college classmate, the Delta Airlines CEO was Chelsea's ex-husband. Chelsea disclosed this fact, and still received the majority of votes from shareholders.
• The two shareholders who supported the shutdown proposed by Chelsea Edinburgh each owned 30% of Fly High Corporations' shares, and had always backed Chelsea's decisions in the past because they were close friends of Chelsea outside of work.

• A set of e-mails presented in court revealed that Chelsea had been contacted by the Delta Airlines CEO, and had been offered a future director's job paying twice her current salary if she shut down the several flights that were not creating revenue flows that Chelsea desired.
• Chelsea disclosed that she knew that Delta Airlines was headed by an old college classmate whom she had never spoken with.