Americas Mining Corporation v. Theriault

Supreme Court of Delaware
50 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2012) (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A transaction between a corporation and its controlling shareholder, even when negotiated by a special committee of independent directors, fails the entire fairness test if the committee operates under a "controlled mindset," fails to bargain effectively at arm's length, and agrees to a price that is not objectively fair. The burden to prove entire fairness remains on the defendants unless they can show the special committee was both independent and well-functioning.

Facts:

Grupo Mexico was the controlling shareholder of Southern Peru, a publicly-traded mining company, and also owned 99.15% of Minera, a private Mexican mining company.
In February 2004, Grupo Mexico proposed that Southern Peru acquire its stake in Minera in exchange for newly-issued Southern Peru stock, initially valuing Minera at $3.05 billion.
Southern Peru's board formed a Special Committee of purportedly independent directors to evaluate the transaction.
The Special Committee's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, performed an initial analysis showing that Southern Peru would 'give' stock with a market value of over $3 billion but would 'get' Minera, an asset worth at most $1.7 billion.
Instead of using this analysis to negotiate a lower price, the Special Committee and Goldman Sachs shifted to a 'relative valuation' methodology, which devalued Southern Peru's verifiable market price in order to rationalize Grupo Mexico's asking price.
One member of the Special Committee, Harold Handelsman, represented another large stockholder, Cerro, which urgently wanted to sell its Southern Peru shares and needed Grupo Mexico's cooperation to gain registration rights for its stock, creating divided loyalties.
On October 21, 2004, the Special Committee approved the deal for Southern Peru to issue 67.2 million new shares to Grupo Mexico, which had a market value of approximately $3.1 billion at the time.
By the time the merger closed on April 1, 2005, the value of the 67.2 million Southern Peru shares issued as consideration had increased to $3.75 billion.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Michael Theriault filed a derivative suit on behalf of Southern Peru in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Americas Mining Corporation (AMC), Grupo Mexico-affiliated directors, and the Special Committee members.
The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and the Special Committee defendants separately moved for summary judgment based on an exculpatory charter provision.
The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment for the Special Committee members, dismissing them from the case, but denied the motion for the remaining defendants, AMC and its affiliated directors.
Following a bench trial, the Court of Chancery found that the remaining defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by causing Southern Peru to enter into a merger that was not entirely fair.
The Court of Chancery entered a final judgment awarding over $2 billion in damages to Southern Peru and over $304 million in attorneys' fees.
The defendants-appellants appealed the judgment, damage award, and attorneys' fees to the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a merger transaction in which a controlling shareholder causes the corporation to acquire the controller's asset satisfy the entire fairness standard when the special committee negotiating the deal operated under a 'controlled mindset' and agreed to a price demonstrably higher than the asset's standalone value?

Opinions:

Majority - Holland, Justice

No. The merger fails to satisfy the entire fairness standard because the process was flawed and the price was unfair. To shift the burden of proof under entire fairness, a special committee must not only be independent but must also be 'well-functioning,' which this committee was not. From its inception, the Special Committee operated under a 'controlled mindset,' allowing the controlling shareholder, Grupo Mexico, to dictate the terms of the deal. Instead of focusing on the absolute value disparity where Southern Peru would 'give' stock worth over $3 billion for an asset worth far less, the committee rationalized the transaction by adopting a flawed 'relative valuation' that devalued its own company's market-tested stock price. This failure to engage in true, arm's-length bargaining constituted unfair dealing, which directly led to an unfair price. Therefore, the defendants failed to carry their burden of proving the transaction was entirely fair to Southern Peru and its minority shareholders.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Berger, Justice

Justice Berger concurred with the majority's decision on the merits, agreeing that the merger was not entirely fair. However, she dissented on the issue of attorneys' fees, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding over $304 million. The dissent contends the trial court did not properly apply the required 'Sugarland' factors for determining reasonable fees. Instead, the trial judge based the massive award on personal worldviews about the need to incentivize lawyers, comparisons to investment bankers' compensation, and a dismissal of objections as mere 'envy,' which does not constitute a proper legal analysis.

Analysis:

This decision powerfully reinforces the stringent requirements of the entire fairness standard in transactions with controlling shareholders. The court's introduction of the 'controlled mindset' concept serves as a crucial warning that the mere procedural step of forming a special committee is insufficient; the committee must substantively function with true independence and engage in vigorous, arm's-length bargaining. The ruling prospectively clarifies the burden of proof, stating that if a pre-trial determination on burden-shifting is not possible, the burden remains with the defendant controller, providing greater certainty for litigants. The case underscores that Delaware courts will conduct a searching, reality-based inquiry into the negotiation process, scrutinizing financial analyses and committee actions for signs of deference to the controller.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Americas Mining Corporation v. Theriault (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature