Heilbrunn v. Sun Chemical Corp.
150 A.2d 755, 1959 Del. LEXIS 121, 38 Del. Ch. 321 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A transaction structured as a purchase of assets for stock does not constitute a de facto merger from the perspective of the acquiring corporation's stockholders. Therefore, these stockholders are not entitled to appraisal rights, as their investment in the acquiring corporation and the essential nature of its enterprise remain fundamentally unchanged.
Facts:
- Norman E. Alexander was the sole beneficial stockholder of Ansbacher-Siegle Corporation (Ansbacher).
- In early 1957, through negotiations, Alexander became president of a much larger company, Sun Chemical Corporation (Sun), in which he and associates also owned substantial shares.
- A special committee of Sun's board, led by Alexander, determined that Sun's existing pigment plant was inefficient and recommended the acquisition of Ansbacher.
- On October 2, 1957, Sun and Ansbacher entered into an agreement for Sun to acquire all of Ansbacher's assets and assume its liabilities.
- In exchange for its assets, Ansbacher was to receive 225,000 shares of Sun's common stock.
- The agreement required Ansbacher to dissolve as soon as possible after the transaction and distribute the Sun stock to its sole shareholder, Alexander.
- A majority of Sun's stockholders, excluding shares controlled by Alexander, approved the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Stockholders of Sun Chemical Corporation (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (trial court) against Sun Chemical, Ansbacher-Siegle Corporation, and Norman E. Alexander.
- The complaint alleged that the transaction was both an unlawful de facto merger and unfair due to self-interest.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
- The Vice Chancellor of the Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss the de facto merger claim but denied the motion to dismiss the unfairness claim.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal of their de facto merger claim 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 transaction structured as a purchase of all of a corporation's assets in exchange for stock, which is followed by the selling corporation's dissolution and distribution of the stock, constitute a de facto merger that grants appraisal rights to the stockholders of the purchasing corporation under Delaware law?
Opinions:
Majority - Southerland, Chief Justice
No. A transaction structured as a sale of assets is legally distinct from a merger and does not trigger merger-related rights, such as appraisal, for the stockholders of the purchasing corporation. The court reasoned that the de facto merger doctrine is meant to protect stockholders who suffer a specific type of injury, such as being forced to accept stock in a new and different enterprise. Here, the stockholders of Sun Chemical were not injured in that way; their corporation simply acquired new assets and continued its business. The essential nature of their investment in Sun did not change. The court explicitly distinguished the situation of the purchasing corporation's stockholders from that of the selling corporation's, noting that what Ansbacher did with the Sun stock after receiving it (dissolving and distributing it) was of no legal concern to Sun's stockholders and inflicted no injury upon them.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the doctrine of independent legal significance in Delaware corporate law, which holds that if a corporate action is authorized by a specific section of the corporate code, its legal validity will be judged under that section alone. The court refused to recharacterize a valid sale of assets as a de facto merger simply because it had a similar economic outcome. This decision provides corporate planners with certainty and flexibility, allowing them to structure transactions as asset sales to avoid triggering statutory appraisal rights for the acquirer's shareholders, which would be mandatory in a formal merger. It signals a formalistic rather than a substance-over-form approach to interpreting the distinct provisions of corporation statutes.
