IN RE IBP, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION
789 A.2d 14 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: IBP (P), cross-claim plaintiff, sought to compel a merger with Tyson
(D), cross-claim defendant, in a post-trial demand for specific performance.
FACTS: P seeks to compel the 'Merger' between itself and D. The Merger Agreement resulted
from a vigorous auction process that pitted D against the nation's number one pork producer,
Smithfield Foods. During the bidding process, D was anxious to ensure that it would acquire
P, and to make sure Smithfield did not. D was given a great deal of information that
suggested that P was heading into a trough in the beef business. D was alerted to serious
problems at P subsidiary and D knew that P was projected to fall seriously short of the
fiscal year 2000 earnings. Even so D raised its bid by a total of $4.00 a share after
learning of these problems. D also signed the Merger Agreement, which permitted P to
recognize unlimited additional liabilities on account of the accounting improprieties at the
subsidiary. D did not demand any representation that P meet its projections for future
earnings, or any escrow tied to those projections. D's stockholders ratified the merger
agreement and authorized its management to take whatever action was needed to effectuate it.
D began having buyer's regret. D made the decision to abandon the Merger because of P's and
D's poor results in 2001, and not because of subsidiary or the SEC issues. D terminated the
agreement. The court determined the Agreement was valid. It now addresses the issue of
specific performance.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment