With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 28. However, we see no reason why a voidable shareholders’ resolution may not be ratified at a subsequent, valid shareholders’ meeting, where the shareholders were fully informed of what they are asked to ratify and where no action was taken to avoid the earlier resolution. See also Koprowski v. Wistar Inst. of Anatomy and Biology, 1993 WL 106466 (E.D.Pa.1993) (where the board voted to remove the plaintiff from office, but where the vote was ineffective because it was not done by “a majority of the whole number of board members as required by [the institute’s] Second Deed of Trust,” the board properly convened another meeting and properly voted to “adopt and ratify the resolutions passed by the [b]oard” at the earlier meeting); Lofland v. DiSabatino, 1991 WL 138505 (Del.Ch.1991) (<HOLDING>). Further, the only precedent that Appellant's

A: holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice
B: holding that although the notice of the annual shareholders meeting was defective the election of the directors at the meeting was not void but voidable and  j the election was duly confirmed and ratified at a later meeting after proper notice
C: holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after
D: holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
B.