Katz v. Oak Industries Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware
508 A.2d 873 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A corporation does not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by presenting a financially attractive but structurally coercive exchange offer to its debt holders, as the relationship between a corporation and its bondholders is purely contractual and governed by the express terms of the indenture, not by fiduciary duties.

Facts:

Oak Industries, Inc. was in severe financial distress, having sustained unremitting losses for several years, resulting in a negative stockholders' equity of $62 million by 1985.
To avoid failure, Oak entered into a restructuring plan with Allied-Signal, Inc., which included the sale of Oak's Materials Segment and a $15 million cash infusion from Allied-Signal for Oak's common stock.
Allied-Signal's obligation to invest was conditioned on at least 85% of Oak's aggregate long-term debt being tendered into a proposed exchange offer.
Oak consequently launched an exchange offer to its bondholders, offering to purchase their debt for cash at a premium over the current market price, but below face value.
A key feature of the offer required any bondholder who tendered their securities to also consent to proposed amendments to the governing indentures.
These amendments would eliminate significant financial covenants and protections for any bondholders who chose not to tender their securities.
Amending the indentures was necessary because existing covenants prohibited Oak from taking the steps required to complete the recapitalization and satisfy the conditions of the Allied-Signal agreements.
Katz was a holder of Oak's long-term debt securities subject to the exchange offer and consent solicitation.

Procedural Posture:

Katz, a holder of Oak Industries, Inc.'s debt securities, filed a class action lawsuit against Oak in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Katz sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the consummation of Oak's exchange offer and consent solicitation.
The Court of Chancery held an argument on Katz's application for a preliminary injunction.

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 corporation breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by structuring an exchange offer for its debt securities that requires tendering bondholders to simultaneously consent to amendments that eliminate protective covenants for any remaining non-tendering bondholders?

Opinions:

Majority - Chancellor Allen

No, a corporation does not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by making such an offer. The relationship between a corporation and its debt holders is purely contractual, governed by the indenture, and does not involve fiduciary duties. The court reasoned that directors' obligations are to the corporation and its stockholders, and actions that benefit stockholders, even at the expense of bondholders, are not inherently a breach of duty. The court found the term 'coercion' not legally dispositive; the action must be wrongful. The test for wrongfulness under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is whether the parties would have explicitly proscribed the act had they negotiated the issue. Here, there was no basis to conclude the parties would have forbidden offering an inducement for consents. The provision preventing the company from voting its own treasury securities was not violated because the bondholders, who have a financial interest in maximizing their return, give consent before the securities become treasury securities. Finally, the offer is not a functional equivalent of a redemption because it is a voluntary exchange dependent on an attractive price, not a unilateral act by the issuer.

Analysis:

This case firmly establishes in Delaware law that the relationship between a corporation and its bondholders is purely contractual, not fiduciary. It gives corporate management significant latitude to use 'coercive' exchange offers, also known as exit consents, as a tool for corporate restructuring, even if such offers disadvantage non-tendering bondholders. The decision clarifies that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a narrow gap-filler, applicable only when an action violates the spirit of what was negotiated, rather than a broad, fairness-based standard. Consequently, bondholders seeking protection from such actions must ensure that those protections are explicitly written into the indenture.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Katz v. Oak Industries Inc. (1986)

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