Florida Commercial Banks v. Culverhouse
772 F.2d 1513 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A target corporation has an implied private right of action under the Williams Act (Sections 13(d), 14(d), and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act) to seek injunctive relief compelling a tender offeror to issue corrective disclosures for false or misleading filings.
Facts:
- Hugh F. Culverhouse, Sr. began acquiring common stock in Florida Commercial Banks, Inc. ('the Bank').
- In October 1981, Culverhouse's ownership of the Bank's stock reached 5% of the shares outstanding, triggering SEC disclosure requirements.
- Later that month, Culverhouse filed a Schedule 13D statement with the SEC, as required by Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act.
- Over the next three years, Culverhouse continued to acquire the Bank's stock and filed 12 amendments to his Schedule 13D.
- In August 1984, Culverhouse initiated a tender offer seeking to acquire enough shares to gain a controlling interest of approximately 54.8% in the Bank.
- Contemporaneously with the tender offer, Culverhouse filed a Schedule 14D-1 Tender Offer Statement with the SEC.
- The Bank alleged Culverhouse's filings contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including a failure to disclose his intent to resell the Bank and his negotiations with an entity styled as the 'John Doe Group'.
Procedural Posture:
- Florida Commercial Banks, Inc. ('the Bank') filed a complaint against Hugh F. Culverhouse, Sr. in the United States District Court.
- The Bank sought an injunction to compel Culverhouse to make corrective disclosures in his SEC filings and to enjoin him from proceeding with his tender offer.
- Culverhouse filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the Bank lacked standing under the precedent of Liberty National Insurance Holding Co. v. Charter Co.
- The district court granted Culverhouse's motion and dismissed the Bank's federal claims with prejudice.
- The Bank, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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 target corporation have an implied private cause of action under Sections 13(d), 14(d), and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Williams Act) to seek injunctive relief requiring a tender offeror to issue corrective disclosures for allegedly false and misleading filings?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Circuit Judge
Yes, a target corporation has an implied private cause of action under the Williams Act to seek injunctive relief requiring a tender offeror to make corrective disclosures. The court's prior decision in Liberty National, which denied standing, is distinguishable because the remedy sought there was divestiture, which would harm shareholders by depressing the stock price. The remedy of corrective disclosure, in contrast, directly effectuates the primary purpose of the Williams Act: protecting investors by providing them with accurate information. Applying the Cort v. Ash test, the court finds that legislative intent supports this implied right, as Congress amended the Williams Act in 1977 without eliminating the private right of action that courts had consistently been finding. Furthermore, allowing the target corporation to sue is necessary for the Act to be effective, as the issuer is often in the best position to quickly identify inaccuracies and seek a remedy for the benefit of shareholders, who lack the resources to do so themselves.
Dissenting - Pay, Circuit Judge
No. The prior controlling precedent of Liberty National cannot be read as narrowly as the majority suggests, and therefore the district court's dismissal should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a target corporation's standing under the Williams Act by establishing a remedy-specific analysis. It affirms that while courts are generally reluctant to imply private rights of action, they may do so when the action directly furthers the statute's legislative purpose. By distinguishing between the harmful remedy of divestiture and the beneficial remedy of corrective disclosure, the court allows target companies to act as 'private attorneys general' to enforce disclosure rules, but only in ways that protect, rather than harm, shareholder interests. This precedent solidifies the role of the target's management in policing tender offer disclosures, reinforcing the Act's goal of ensuring investors receive accurate information.
