Coggins v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.
397 Mass. 525, 492 N.E.2d 1112 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A freeze-out merger orchestrated by a controlling shareholder must serve a legitimate corporate purpose and be entirely fair to the minority shareholders; a merger conducted solely for the personal financial benefit of the controlling shareholder constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.
Facts:
- In 1959, William H. Sullivan, Jr. purchased an AFL franchise which became the New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. (Old Patriots), a corporation with both voting and nonvoting public shares.
- By 1975, Sullivan had regained 100% control of the corporation's voting stock by incurring approximately $5.348 million in personal loans.
- As a condition of the loans, the lending banks required Sullivan to reorganize the corporation so that its income and assets could be used to repay and secure his personal debt.
- To satisfy this condition, Sullivan determined it was necessary to eliminate the interests of the 120,000 nonvoting public shares.
- In 1976, Sullivan formed a new corporation (New Patriots), of which he was the sole owner, and structured a merger between the Old Patriots and the New Patriots.
- The terms of the merger forced the nonvoting shareholders of the Old Patriots, including David A. Coggins, to surrender their shares in exchange for $15 cash per share.
- Coggins, a long-time shareholder who took pride in his ownership, believed the transaction was unfair and illegal, and he voted his ten shares against the merger.
Procedural Posture:
- David A. Coggins filed a class-action lawsuit in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the New England Patriots Football Club, Inc., and its directors, seeking to void the merger.
- The Superior Court judge certified a class of stockholders who had voted against the merger but had neither surrendered their shares nor perfected statutory appraisal rights.
- Following a trial, the judge ruled that the merger was illegal but declined to order rescission, instead finding the plaintiffs were entitled to rescissory damages.
- The trial judge then granted motions to allow plaintiffs from two other related lawsuits to intervene in the Coggins case.
- On the defendants' motion, the trial judge reported the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted applications from both parties for direct appellate review before the case was heard by the Appeals Court.
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 cash freeze-out merger, which complies with statutory procedures, violate the fiduciary duty owed by a controlling shareholder to the minority shareholders if the merger's sole purpose is to enable the controlling shareholder to use corporate assets to secure and repay personal debt?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, J.
Yes. A cash freeze-out merger violates the controlling shareholder's fiduciary duty to the minority if the transaction lacks a legitimate corporate purpose. The court imposes a two-part test for judicial review of such mergers: the controlling shareholder bears the burden of proving, first, that the merger serves a legitimate business purpose, and second, that it is fair to the minority considering the totality of the circumstances. Here, the court found the 'sole reason for the merger' was to allow Sullivan to use corporate assets to repay his personal indebtedness, which is not a legitimate corporate objective. Because the merger failed the business purpose test, it was a breach of Sullivan's fiduciary duty, and compliance with statutory procedures cannot insulate the transaction from judicial scrutiny for fairness.
Analysis:
This case establishes a stringent, two-part test in Massachusetts for evaluating the validity of freeze-out mergers, placing a significant burden of proof on the controlling shareholders. By requiring a legitimate business purpose in addition to total fairness, the decision provides greater protection for minority shareholders than the approach in other key jurisdictions like Delaware. It affirms that statutory appraisal is not the exclusive remedy for dissenting shareholders when a breach of fiduciary duty is involved, signaling that courts will look beyond procedural compliance to scrutinize the substantive motives behind self-dealing transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Coggins v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.