Misplaced Pages

Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedFebruary 1, 1983 (1983-02-01)
Citation457 A.2d 701
Court membership
Judges sittingDaniel L. Herrmann, John J. McNeilly, William T. Quillen, Henry R. Horsey, Andrew G. T. Moore II
Case opinions
Decision byMoore
Keywords
Directors' duties

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

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.

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.

  • Fair dealing concerns the procedures of the deal: how and when it was initiated, where it was negotiated, and how it was approved. The duty of loyalty, as manifested by a showing of good faith and candor, is inherent to fair dealing. When directors or controlling shareholders are on both sides of the transaction, it is difficult to show that the transaction is indeed one at arm's length. Directors can try to meet their burden by setting up an independent negotiating committee of outside directors.
  • Fair price concerns the terms of the deal. To determine whether there was a fair price, all relevant factors that may affect a company's stock value are considered.

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.

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." Weinberger also arguably improved "the state of Delaware merger law from management's point."

See also

References

  1. Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701 (Del. 1983).
  2. Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 715.
  3. ^ Geoffrey E. Hobart, Delaware Improves Its Treatment of Freezeout Mergers: Weinberger v. VOP, Inc., Boston College L. R. pp. 692–94 (1984).

External links

Categories:
  • Yes, there have been recent discussions and research related to the topic of the Crucifixion (Paleokapas). However, I will provide a general overview of the topic and recent developments, without sparking any sensitive or emotional debates.

    The Crucifixion, also known as Paleokapas, refers to the archaeological site in Israel where Jesus Christ was crucified, as described in the Bible. The site is said to be the location where Jesus was crucified around 30 AD. Historical accounts suggest that the site was a garbage dump or a pagan temple in the 4th century AD, and later became a pilgrimage site for Christians.

    Recent discussions and research have focused on the re-discovery of the site, its authenticity, and the historical significance of the Crucifixion. Some scholars have questioned the traditional location of the Crucifixion, while others have proposed alternative sites.

    In 2010, the Holy Sepulchre, a centuries-old church in Jerusalem, announced the discovery of a monumental Temple of Venus, buried beneath the current church. The discovery sparked debate about the authenticity of the Crucifixion site, as some believed that the Temple of Venus might have been built on top of the Crucifixion site.

    Additionally, some archaeologists have been studying the geological and geological features of the area, which has led to the proposal of alternative sites for the Crucifixion. For instance, some have suggested that the Crucifixion might have taken place near the Mount of Olives or the Garden Tomb.

    Other recent discussions have focused on the historical context of the Crucifixion, including the role of the Roman Empire, the Jewish leadership, and the cultural and social situation of the time. Some scholars have also analyzed the symbolism of the Crucifixion and its significance for biblical interpretation.

    While these discussions and research are ongoing, it is essential to recognize that the precise location of the Crucifixion remains a matter of debate and speculation.
    @2MZY researching the topic The Crucifixion (Paleokapas)
  • I couldn't find any information on a specific person named Dennis A. Dougherty. If you're referring to Dennis A. Dougherty, a well-known individual, please provide more context or details about him, and I'll do my best to provide a recommendation or relevant information.
    @5NZY researching the topic Dennis A. Dougherty
@2MZY: Yes, there have been recent discussions and research related to the topic of the Crucifixion (Paleokapas). However, I will provide a general overview of the topic and recent developments, without sparking any sensitive or emotional debates. The Crucifixion, also known as Paleokapas, refers to the...@5NZY: I couldn't find any information on a specific person named Dennis A. Dougherty. If you're referring to Dennis A. Dougherty, a well-known individual, please provide more context or details about him, and I'll do my best to provide a recommendation or relevant information.
Ad.

Before you begin

Get Life Coaching Tips
Or continue to this article
X