Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Incorporated
571 A.2d 1140 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A board of directors is not obligated to abandon a pre-existing, long-term corporate strategy for a short-term shareholder profit from a hostile tender offer, and defensive measures taken to protect that strategy are permissible under the business judgment rule if they satisfy the Unocal test for reasonableness and proportionality.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1983, Time Incorporated's (Time) board began developing a long-term strategic plan to expand into the entertainment industry to ensure future growth and protect its journalistic 'Time Culture.'
- After extensive review of potential partners, Time's board concluded in 1988 that Warner Communications, Inc. (Warner) was the best strategic fit.
- On March 3, 1989, Time and Warner's boards approved a stock-for-stock merger agreement that would result in Warner shareholders owning approximately 62% of the combined company, Time-Warner, Inc. This deal required approval from Time's shareholders.
- On June 7, 1989, shortly before the scheduled shareholder vote, Paramount Communications, Inc. (Paramount) launched an unsolicited, all-cash tender offer for all of Time's shares at $175 per share, conditioned on Time abandoning its merger with Warner.
- Time's board rejected Paramount's offer, believing it was inadequate and posed a threat to Time's long-term strategic plan and corporate culture.
- Fearing its shareholders might accept Paramount's immediate cash offer and vote down the strategic merger, Time's board, on June 16, 1989, abandoned the stock-for-stock merger with Warner.
- Time's board immediately restructured the transaction into an all-cash tender offer by Time to acquire 51% of Warner's shares, with the remainder to be acquired later. This new structure did not require a Time shareholder vote but would cause Time to incur $7-10 billion in debt.
- Paramount subsequently raised its offer to $200 per share, which Time's board again rejected, proceeding with its acquisition of Warner.
Procedural Posture:
- Paramount and various Time shareholders (Shareholder Plaintiffs) filed separate lawsuits against Time in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- The cases were consolidated, and the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop Time's tender offer for Warner's shares.
- The Chancellor of the Court of Chancery denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
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 board of directors breach its fiduciary duties by implementing defensive measures, such as restructuring a planned merger into a cash acquisition, to protect a long-term corporate strategy and preclude shareholders from accepting a hostile all-cash tender offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Horsey, Justice
No. The Time board's defensive response to Paramount's offer did not breach its fiduciary duties because it was a reasonable measure to protect a pre-existing and legitimate corporate strategy. The court first determined that Revlon duties to maximize short-term shareholder value were not triggered by the original Time-Warner merger, as it was not a change of control or a sale of the company; control remained in the hands of a fluid aggregation of public shareholders. The court then applied the Unocal enhanced scrutiny test to the restructured Warner acquisition, which was a defensive measure. Under the first Unocal prong, the board reasonably perceived Paramount's offer as a threat not just to price, but to the very corporate policy and effectiveness of Time's long-term strategy. Threats can include shareholder confusion or ignorance of long-term value and the timing of an offer meant to disrupt a strategic plan. Under the second Unocal prong, the response was proportionate because it was not coercive but was aimed at carrying forward a pre-existing transaction in an altered form; it was not designed to cram down a management-sponsored alternative but to protect the company's strategic vision.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly empowered corporate boards to 'just say no' to hostile takeovers. It established that directors' fiduciary duties are not limited to maximizing immediate shareholder value, but also encompass the preservation of a long-term corporate strategy. The case broadened the definition of a 'threat' under Unocal beyond inadequate price to include threats to corporate policy, culture, and long-range plans. This gives boards substantial discretion to reject even all-cash, premium offers if they can articulate a legitimate, pre-existing business strategy that the offer would thwart.
