Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.

Last updated
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
Seal of the Supreme Court of Delaware.svg
Court Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided February 1, 1983 (1983-02-01)
Citation(s) 457 A.2d 701
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Daniel L. Herrmann, John J. McNeilly, William T. Quillen, Henry R. Horsey, Andrew G. T. Moore II
Case opinions
Decision by Moore
Keywords
Directors' duties

Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701 (Del. 1983), [1] is a case concerning United States corporate law in the context of mergers and "squeeze outs".

United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has done the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

Contents

In Delaware squeeze-out mergers are subject to a two prong entire fairness test. The test focuses on the fairness of both the transaction's price and the process of approval. The two prongs are fair price and fair dealing.

Delaware State of the United States of America

Delaware is one of the 50 states of the United States, in the South-Atlantic or Southern region. It is bordered to the south and west by Maryland, north by Pennsylvania, and east by New Jersey and the Atlantic Ocean. The state takes its name from Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr, an English nobleman and Virginia's first colonial governor.

Financial transaction agreement, or communication, carried out between a buyer and a seller to exchange an asset for payment

A financial transaction is an agreement, or communication, carried out between a buyer and a seller to exchange an asset for payment.

Fair value

In accounting and in most Schools of economic thought, fair value is a rational and unbiased estimate of the potential market price of a good, service, or asset. It takes into account such objectivity factors as:

Facts

In 1974, Signal Companies, Inc. acquired 50.5% of UOP, Inc.'s outstanding shares. At this time, Signal nominated and elected six of the thirteen directors on UOP's board.

In 1977, Signal became interested in acquiring the rest of UOP at any price up to $24 per share. Signal received a fairness opinion from Lehman Brothers, stating that $21 per share was a fair price, although the fairness opinion may have been based upon hasty and incomplete review. Signal's board unanimously voted to propose a merger at $21 per share. Upon receiving this offer, UOP's board urged the shareholders to approve the merger. The merger was approved and became effective in May, 1978.

Plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of the minority shareholders of UOP, challenging the fairness of the merger agreement.

Judgment

The Court held that in long-form freeze-out mergers, defendants have the burden of satisfying the Entire Fairness Test. This test has two prongs: fair dealing and fair price.

The Court also dismissed the relevance of the need for defendants to satisfy the business purpose test. Given the strength of the exclusive appraisal remedy and the high standard of showing entire fairness, the business purpose test does not afford "any additional meaningful protection" to minority shareholders. [2]

Significance

At the time, Weinberger marked an improvement in judicial treatment of minority shareholders involved in freeze out mergers. This improvement was a result of the court's elimination of the business purpose test. This directed the court's attention to the twin components of the entire fairness standard — fair dealing and fair price — which in turn directs its attention to the treatment of minority shareholders. With this change came an improved method for appraisal of judicial remedies for minority shareholders: "the Weinberger court improved the effectiveness of the appraisal remedy by allowing the use of modern valuation techniques in future appraisal proceedings. The use of such techniques in appraisal proceedings will serve to guarantee that former shareholders receive fair value for the shares expropriated from them." [3] Weinberger also arguably improved "the state of Delaware merger law from management's point." [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

Mergers and acquisitions transactions in which the ownership of companies, other business organizations or their operating units are transferred or combined

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are transactions in which the ownership of companies, other business organizations, or their operating units are transferred or consolidated with other entities. As an aspect of strategic management, M&A can allow enterprises to grow or downsize, and change the nature of their business or competitive position.

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation is an American semiconductor design and manufacturing company. It offers NOR flash memories, F-RAM and SRAM Traveo microcontrollers, and is the only PSoC programmable system-on-chip solutions, analog and PMIC Power Management ICs, CapSense capacitive touch-sensing controllers, Wireless BLE Bluetooth Low-Energy and USB connectivity solutions.

The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives. It is rooted in the principle that the "directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge". The rule exists in some form in most common law countries, including the United States, Canada, England and Wales, and Australia.

A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. Because derivative suits vary the traditional roles of management and shareholders, many jurisdictions have implemented various procedural requirements to derivative suits.

In corporate law in Commonwealth countries, an oppression remedy is a statutory right available to oppressed shareholders. It empowers the shareholders to bring an action against the corporation in which they own shares when the conduct of the company has an effect that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards the interests of a shareholder. It was introduced in response to Foss v Harbottle, which had held that where a company's actions were ratified by a majority of the shareholders, the courts will not generally interfere.

<i>Smith v. Van Gorkom</i>

Smith v. Van Gorkom 488 A.2d 858 is a United States corporate law case of the Delaware Supreme Court, discussing a director's duty of care. It is often called the "Trans Union case". Van Gorkom is sometimes referred to as the most important case regarding business organizations because it shows a unique scenario when the board is found liable even after applying the business judgment rule. The decision "stripped corporate directors and officers of the protective cloak formerly provided by the business judgment rule, rendering them liable for the tort of gross negligence for the violation of their duties under the rule."

A squeeze-out or squeezeout, sometimes synonymous with freeze-out (freezeout), is the compulsory sale of the shares of minority shareholders of a joint-stock company for which they receive a fair cash compensation.

TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the requirement of materiality in securities fraud cases.

<i>Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.</i>

Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 is a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on corporate defensive tactics against take-over bids.

The de facto merger doctrine states that courts will look to substance over form when determining whether statutory merger law applies to a company's shareholders. Thus, where an asset acquisition leads to the same result as a statutory merger, these jurisdictions demand that shareholders are given the same rights as in the statutory merger. The doctrine was primarily established in Farris v. Glen Alden Corp., 143 A.2d 25.

Internal affairs doctrine

The internal affairs doctrine is a choice of law rule in corporations law. Simply stated, it provides that the "internal affairs" of a corporation will be governed by the corporate statutes and case law of the state in which the corporation is incorporated, sometimes referred to as the lex incorporationis.

A fairness opinion is a professional evaluation by an investment bank or other third party as to whether the terms of a merger, acquisition, buyback, spin-off, or privatization are fair. It is rendered for a fee. They are typically issued when a public company is being sold, merged or divested of all or a substantial division of their business. They can also be required in private transactions not involving a company that is traded on a public exchange, as well as in circumstances other than mergers, such as a corporation exchanging debt for equity. Some of the specific functions of a fairness opinion are to aid in decision-making, mitigate risk, and enhance communication.

Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the "fraud-on-the-market theory" as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases.

<i>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

Shareholder oppression occurs when the majority shareholders in a corporation take action that unfairly prejudices the minority. It most commonly occurs in close corporations, because the lack of a public market for shares leaves minority shareholders particularly vulnerable, since minority shareholders cannot escape mistreatment by selling their stock and exiting the corporation. The majority shareholders may harm the economic interests of the minority by refusing to declare dividends or attempting a squeezeout. The majority may physically lock the minority out of the corporate premises and even deny the minority the right to inspect corporate records and books, making it necessary for the minority to sue every time it wants to look at them. An important concept in law pertaining to shareholder oppression is the "reasonable expectations" of the minority shareholder. The "fair dealing" standard is also sometimes used by courts.

Canadian corporate law

Canadian company law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<i>BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders</i>

BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the duties of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation, "viewed as a good corporate citizen". This case introduced the principle of fair treatment as an organizing principle in Canadian corporate law.

<i>Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc.</i>

Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 94, 514 ; aff'd, 571 A.2d 1140 is a U.S. corporate law case from Delaware, concerning defensive measures in the mergers and acquisitions context. The Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the use of defensive measures to advance the long-term goals of the target corporation, where the corporation was not in "Revlon mode".

Sadis & Goldberg

Sadis & Goldberg LLP is a New York-based law firm with practices in hedge, private equity, venture capital, real estate and commodity fund formation, family office, transactional counseling, compliance services, regulatory representation, litigation, derivatives, tax, ERISA, estate planning and real estate. Sadis & Goldberg was voted "Best Global and North American Law Firm" for hedge funds and ranked number five in 2016 Preqin Global Hedge Fund Report.

References

  1. Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457A.2d701 ( Del. 1983).
  2. Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 715.
  3. 1 2 Geoffrey E. Hobart, Delaware Improves Its Treatment of Freezeout Mergers: Weinberger v. VOP, Inc., Boston College L. R. pp. 692–94 (1984).