Make this sound more informative

Based on multiple testimonies, the court decided that the donation by the company was done to gain goodwill in the community and that the company was furthering its self-interest in assuring the free flow of adequately trained personnel for administrative and other corporate employment. In 1930, a statute was enacted in NJ that states that donations shall not be permissible if the institution owns more than 10% of the voting stock of the donor and provided, further, that the contribution shall not exceed 1% of capital and surplus unless the excess is authorized by the stockholders. In this case, there is no suggestion that the donation was made to a pet charity of the corporate directors in furtherance of personal rather than corporate ends. Hence, the court upheld the lower court's decision.