Brascan Ltd. v. Edper Equities Ltd.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
477 F. Supp. 773 (1979)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Brascan Ltd. (Brascan) (plaintiff) was a Canadian company whose stock was traded in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Edper Equities Ltd. (Edper) (defendant) was a 5 percent shareholder in Brascan. After unsuccessfully trying to acquire Brascan, Edper sought the advice of Connacher, the president of Gordon Securities Ltd. (Gordon), on purchasing some 3 million shares of the Brascan on the American stock market to get around Canada’s regulations. Gordon contacted fifty institutional investors and fifteen individual investors with major stakes in Brascan about buying the shares at a premium of several dollars. Edper wound up buying 3.1 million shares before Canadian officials required Edper to announce that it had “no plans” to keep going. Nevertheless, Edper immediately went back to buying shares, purchasing another 3.2 million. All told Edper bought 24 percent of Brascan’s stock in just two days. Brascan sued Edper in federal court, arguing that Edper had violated § 14(e) of the Williams Act (the Act), which requires disclosures of all tender offers, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5’s antifraud provision. Brascan sought divestiture of all the shares Edper had acquired.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.