consent to remove directors, reduce size of board, and elect new directors). 2 . See 1 R. Franklin Balotti & Jesse A. Finkel-stein, The Delaware Law of Corporations & Business Organizations § 4.2 (“Number of Directors”) (3d ed. & 2010 Supp.); 1 David A. Drexler et al., Delaware Corporate Law and Practice §§ 13.01 [2] (“Number of Directors”) & 13.01 [3] ("Term of Office”) (2009); Edward P. Welch, et al., Folk on the Delaware General Corporation Law §§ 141.3 ("Number of directors”) & 141.5 ("Terms of directors and related matters”) (5th ed. 2006 & 2010 Supp.). 3 . See, e.g., Chesapeake Corp. v. Shore, 771 A.2d 293, 345-47 (Del.Ch.2000) (rejecting vested rights argument in context of removal of directors after bylaw amendment to eliminate staggered board); Roven v. Cotter, 547 A.2d at 609 (<HOLDING>); Everett v. Transnation Dev. Corp., 267 A.2d
holding that removal without cause was proper because directors have no vested right to hold office in defiance of a properly expressed will of the majority holding that the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding irrelevant the argument that a directors conduct amounting to minimum contacts was unauthorized where the directors employer ratified the directors conduct