Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.
422 U.S. 49 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private litigant seeking an injunction for a violation of § 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 must satisfy the traditional equitable prerequisites, including a showing of irreparable harm, especially after the violator has made a corrective filing.
Facts:
- In April 1971, Francis A. Rondeau, a businessman, began purchasing common stock in Mosinee Paper Corp.
- By May 17, 1971, Rondeau had acquired more than 5% of Mosinee's outstanding stock, which under the Williams Act required him to file a Schedule 13D disclosure form within 10 days.
- Rondeau, claiming unfamiliarity with the securities law, did not file the required Schedule 13D and continued to purchase stock.
- On July 30, 1971, the chairman of Mosinee's board of directors sent Rondeau a letter informing him that his activity seemed to create problems under federal securities laws.
- Upon receiving the letter, Rondeau immediately ceased placing orders for Mosinee's stock and consulted his attorney.
- On August 25, 1971, approximately three months after the deadline, Rondeau filed the Schedule 13D, disclosing his holdings and stating that he was considering seeking control of the company.
- Following Rondeau's filing, Mosinee's management sent a letter to its shareholders informing them of Rondeau's 'tardy filing' and questioning his qualifications to lead the company.
Procedural Posture:
- Mosinee Paper Corp. sued Francis A. Rondeau in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, seeking an injunction for violating § 13(d).
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Rondeau, finding that Mosinee had not shown irreparable harm and that Rondeau's violation was unintentional.
- Mosinee Paper Corp., as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that a showing of irreparable harm was not required and remanded the case with instructions to issue an injunction against Rondeau.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a private litigant demonstrate irreparable harm to obtain an injunction for a violation of § 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, after the violator has already filed the required disclosure forms?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes, a private litigant must show irreparable harm to obtain an injunction for a § 13(d) violation. The purpose of the Williams Act is to protect informed shareholder decision-making during a tender offer, not to provide incumbent management with a weapon to defeat takeovers. Because Rondeau had since complied with the filing requirements and no tender offer was pending, there was no risk of future harm to shareholders that would justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Shareholders who sold during the period of non-disclosure have an adequate remedy at law through a suit for damages, which negates the need for equitable relief. Citing Hecht Co. v. Bowles, the Court affirmed that even in securities cases with an implied private right of action, traditional equitable principles apply, and an injunction should serve to deter future harm, not to punish a past violation that has been cured.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, an injunction should be authorized without a showing of irreparable harm for a § 13(d) violation. The Williams Act is a prophylactic statute designed to ensure investors and management are notified as early as possible about potential shifts in corporate control. The failure to file on time is, by itself, the actionable harm the statute was designed to prevent. Requiring a separate showing of irreparable harm undermines the congressional intent to create a strict and automatic disclosure requirement, precluding any inquiry into the results of the violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the ability of target companies to use § 13(d) violations as a defensive tool against potential acquirers. By requiring a showing of irreparable harm, the Court ensured that injunctive relief would not be granted for purely 'technical' violations that had already been cured. This reinforces the principle that the Williams Act is intended to be neutral, protecting shareholders without tipping the scales in favor of either management or the bidder. The case clearly separates the question of liability for a statutory violation from the more demanding, fact-specific standard for obtaining an equitable remedy like an injunction.
