RP Acquisition Corp. v. Staley Continental, Inc.
1988 WL 46468, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4358, 686 F. Supp. 476 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state anti-takeover statute is not preempted by the federal Williams Act nor does it violate the Commerce Clause, even if it substantially deters tender offers, so long as it serves the legitimate state purpose of protecting shareholders and provides a 'meaningful opportunity for success' for hostile offers that are beneficial to shareholders.
Facts:
- RP Acquisition Corporation ('RP'), an indirect subsidiary of the English company Tate & Lyle PLC, was engaged in the sweetener industry.
- Staley Continental, Inc. ('Staley'), a Delaware corporation, also participated in the sweetener industry.
- On April 8, 1988, RP initiated a hostile tender offer to purchase any and all outstanding shares of Staley.
- RP planned to merge Staley into Tate & Lyle's operations and sell off Staley's food service business upon acquiring control.
- RP's tender offer was explicitly conditioned on a judicial determination that Delaware's anti-takeover statute, Section 203, was either invalid or inapplicable to the proposed merger.
- On April 20, 1988, Staley's Board of Directors recommended that shareholders reject RP's offer, deeming the price inadequate.
- On April 29, 1988, RP amended its offer, increasing the price offered per share for Staley's common stock.
Procedural Posture:
- RP Acquisition Corporation ('RP') sued Staley Continental, Inc. ('Staley') in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a court of first instance.
- RP filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, asking the court to find Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement against RP's tender offer.
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 the Delaware Business Combinations statute, Section 203, which restricts certain 'business combinations' with an 'interested stockholder' for three years, violate the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Roth, District Judge.
No, the Delaware Business Combinations statute, Section 203, does not violate the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause. Under the Supremacy Clause, the court found that Section 203 is not preempted by the Williams Act because its purpose of protecting shareholders from coercive offers is consistent with the Act's goals. Following the Supreme Court's reasoning in CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, the key inquiry is whether the statute allows for a 'meaningful opportunity for success' for beneficial hostile offers. The court concluded that the statute's exceptions, particularly the '85 percent exception' (allowing a merger if the bidder acquires 85% of shares, excluding those held by officer-directors), provide such an opportunity. The court rejected the plaintiff's statistical evidence that this threshold was insurmountable, finding the evidence unpersuasive and speculative. Under the Commerce Clause, the court found that Section 203 does not discriminate against interstate commerce, does not create an impermissible risk of inconsistent regulation as it only applies to Delaware corporations, and its benefits in protecting shareholders of Delaware-chartered corporations are not clearly outweighed by any burden on interstate commerce.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial judicial endorsement of Delaware's landmark anti-takeover statute, Section 203, solidifying the principles established in CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. It affirms that states possess significant authority to regulate corporate governance, including the ability to enact laws that make hostile takeovers more difficult. The ruling established the 'meaningful opportunity for success' standard as the key constitutional benchmark for such statutes, giving significant deference to state legislatures in balancing shareholder protection against the free market for corporate control. This case gave a green light to a new generation of powerful state anti-takeover laws, cementing Delaware's role as the primary arbiter of corporate governance in the United States.
