PIPER V. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. 430 U.S. 1 (1977) CASE BRIEF

PIPER V. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.

430 U.S. 1 (1977)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Piper (D) appealed a judgment that held that Chris (P) can bring a claim under 14(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10-b.

FACTS: Chris-Craft (P) began making cash purchases of D common stock. P publicly announced a cash tender offer. D decided to oppose P's tender offer. D entered into an agreement with Grumman Aircraft Corp. but even so, P acquired 304,606 shares by the time its cash tender offer expired on February 3. To obtain the additional 17% of D stock needed for control, P decided to make an exchange offer of P securities for D stock. P made cash purchases and was expressly warned by SEC officials that such purchases, when made during the pendency of an exchange offer, violated SEC Rule 10b-6. P then canceled all outstanding orders for purchases of D stock. D then terminated the agreement with Grumman and entered into negotiations with Bangor Punta. The Piper family agreed on May 8, 1969, to exchange their 31% stockholdings in Piper for Bangor Punta securities. Bangor also agreed to use its best efforts to achieve control of D by means of an exchange offer of Bangor securities for D common stock. Bangor then purchased 120,200 shares of D stock in privately negotiated, off-exchange transactions from three large institutional investors. Eventually D won out as P only had 42% of D stock. P sued, alleging that Bangor's block purchases of 120,200 Piper shares in mid-May violated Rule 10b-6 and that Bangor's May 8 press release, announcing an $ 80 valuation of Bangor securities to be offered in the forthcoming exchange offer, violated SEC 'gun-jumping' provisions. P sought to enjoin Bangor from voting the D shares purchased in violation of Rule 10b-6 and from accepting any shares tendered by D stockholders pursuant to the exchange offer. Eventually the court of appeals held that P had standing under 14(e) of the Williams Act. The district court awarded damages and the court of appeals reversed the damage award, setting damages much higher. D appealed.

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner