TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
426 U.S. 438 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An omitted fact is material under securities laws if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote. This requires a showing that the omitted fact would have significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available to the investor.
Facts:
- In February 1969, National Industries, Inc. (National) acquired 34% of the voting securities of TSC Industries, Inc. (TSC) from TSC's founder, Charles Schmidt.
- Following the acquisition, five National nominees were placed on TSC's ten-member board of directors.
- National's President, Stanley Yarmuth, became Chairman of TSC's board, and National's Executive Vice President, Charles Simonelli, became Chairman of TSC's executive committee.
- In October 1969, TSC's board approved a proposal for National to acquire all of TSC's remaining assets through an exchange of stock and warrants; the National-nominated directors abstained from voting.
- On November 12, 1969, TSC and National issued a joint proxy statement to shareholders recommending approval of the acquisition.
- The proxy statement failed to disclose that National's top executives held the chairman positions on TSC's board and executive committee.
- The proxy statement also omitted that both companies had previously stated in SEC filings that National 'may be deemed to be a parent of TSC'.
- The statement highlighted a favorable opinion from an investment bank regarding the 'substantial premium' offered to TSC shareholders but did not disclose a subsequent communication from the bank which used a lower valuation for the warrants, thereby reducing the apparent size of the premium.
Procedural Posture:
- Northway, Inc., a shareholder of TSC, filed a lawsuit against TSC Industries, Inc. and National Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Northway alleged that the defendants' joint proxy statement was materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9.
- Northway moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- The District Court denied the motion for summary judgment.
- Northway appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision in part, granting summary judgment to Northway on the Rule 14a-9 claims and holding that certain omissions were material as a matter of law.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the standard of materiality.
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 an omitted fact in a proxy statement qualify as 'material' under SEC Rule 14a-9 if a reasonable shareholder might consider it important, or must it meet the higher standard of having a substantial likelihood of being considered important by a reasonable shareholder?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. The standard for materiality is not whether a reasonable shareholder might consider a fact important, but whether there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote. The Court of Appeals' 'might' standard is too low, as it could cause management to bury shareholders in an 'avalanche of trivial information' to avoid liability. The correct standard balances the need for disclosure with the prevention of information overload. A fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that its disclosure would have been viewed by a reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information available. Because the determination of materiality is a mixed question of law and fact, summary judgment is only appropriate if the omissions are so obviously important that reasonable minds could not differ. In this case, given the information that was disclosed about National's significant ownership and board representation, reasonable minds could differ on whether the omitted facts were material, making summary judgment for Northway improper.
Analysis:
This case establishes the landmark standard for materiality in federal securities law, replacing various circuit court tests with a single, uniform definition. The 'substantial likelihood' and 'total mix' framework is now foundational for disclosure obligations under rules like 14a-9 (proxy statements) and 10b-5 (insider trading and general fraud). The decision provides corporations with a clearer, albeit fact-intensive, benchmark for what must be disclosed, while protecting investors from being misled by significant omissions. It also limits liability for insignificant omissions, preventing litigation over trivial matters and discouraging defensive 'information dumps' on shareholders.
Unlock the full brief for TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.