Lexplug logoLexplug

Fliegler v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of Delaware
361 A.2d 218 (1976)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When directors of a corporation are on both sides of a transaction, they bear the burden of proving the transaction's intrinsic fairness, and this burden is not shifted by a shareholder ratification vote that is controlled by those same interested directors.


Facts:

  • In November 1969, John C. Lawrence, president of Agau Mines, Inc. (Agau), individually acquired a lease-option on antimony properties.
  • Lawrence offered the opportunity to Agau's board, which determined Agau lacked the financial and legal capacity to pursue it.
  • The individual director defendants then formed a new, closely-held corporation, United States Antimony Corporation (USAC), to acquire and develop the properties, with the defendants owning a majority of USAC's stock.
  • In January 1970, Agau and USAC executed an agreement granting Agau a long-term option to acquire all USAC stock in exchange for 800,000 shares of Agau restricted stock.
  • The exchange price of 800,000 shares was calculated based on USAC's anticipated development costs and the then-current discounted market value of Agau's stock.
  • USAC successfully developed the properties, proving they had commercial value, while Agau's own ventures were failing and it lacked sufficient funds for further exploration.
  • Between the granting of the option and its exercise, the market value of Agau's stock increased significantly, partly due to the potential value of the USAC acquisition.
  • In October 1970, Agau exercised the option after its approval by a majority of shareholders, with the defendant directors casting the majority of the votes in favor of the transaction.

Procedural Posture:

  • A shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of Agau Mines, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery (trial court).
  • The plaintiff sued Agau's officers and directors, as well as United States Antimony Corporation (USAC).
  • The Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the defendants on all claims.
  • The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is a transaction where directors stand on both sides intrinsically fair when the consideration paid by the corporation, although having a high market value at the time of execution, acquires a promising and potentially self-financing enterprise necessary for the corporation's continued existence?


Opinions:

Majority - McNEILLY, Justice

Yes, the transaction is intrinsically fair. When directors stand on both sides of a transaction, they have the burden of demonstrating its intrinsic fairness. This burden is not shifted to an objecting shareholder by a shareholder vote when the majority of the approving votes are cast by the interested directors themselves. Delaware statute § 144 may remove the 'interested director' cloud but does not sanction unfairness or remove the transaction from judicial scrutiny. To determine fairness, a court must assess the transaction as of the date of its consummation, considering all relevant factors beyond mere market or book value. Here, Agau's stock value was inflated precisely because of the valuable option it held to acquire USAC. While Agau was a struggling enterprise, it acquired USAC, a promising, potentially self-financing company with a proven ore body and commercial capability, which was essential for Agau's survival. Therefore, what Agau received was a fair quid pro quo for the shares it paid, and the transaction is one that would have commended itself to an independent corporation in Agau's position.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'intrinsic fairness' standard for interested director transactions under Delaware law. It establishes that shareholder ratification is not a procedural 'cleansing' device when the approving majority consists of the self-interested fiduciaries, thus preserving rigorous judicial review. The analysis significantly moves beyond simplistic valuation metrics like market price or book value, championing a more holistic, 'going concern' approach that considers a company's operational status and future prospects. This precedent guides future courts to look at the substance and real-world business justification of a deal, rather than just its form or fluctuating market indicators, when assessing fairness.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Fliegler v. Lawrence (1976) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Fliegler v. Lawrence