From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
Delaware Supreme Court
684 A.2d 289 (1996)
Facing stagnating earnings, Technicolor Incorporated’s (defendant) chief executive officer (CEO) Morton Kamerman, implemented an extensive plan to expand into the one-hour-photo business. The plan floundered, and Technicolor’s stock price dropped significantly. Ron Perelman, controlling stockholder of MacAndrews & Forbes Group Incorporated (MAF), decided that a takeover of Technicolor would be beneficial to MAF. Negotiations between Kamerman and Perelman commenced. The Technicolor board eventually agreed to MAF’s tender offer of $23 per share. When the tender offer closed on November 30, 1982, MAF was the controlling shareholder of Technicolor. Under Perelman’s direction, MAF crafted new business plans and strategies for Technicolor. Between the closing of the tender offer and the completion of the merger, MAF made efforts to find buyers for Technicolor’s excess assets (e.g., the one-hour-photo division) and anticipated generating $54 million from asset sales. The merger was completed on January 24, 1983. A majority of Technicolor’s shareholders approved the transaction. However, Cede & Co. (Cede) (plaintiff), minority shareholders of Technicolor, dissented from the merger on behalf of the beneficial owner of the shares, Cinerama, Incorporated (plaintiff). Cinerama and Cede instituted an appraisal action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to determine a fair valuation of their shares by the court. The court found that Perelman’s plan to sell Technicolor’s excess assets was not speculative because it was fixed by the date of the merger’s completion. However, the court applied a novel majority-acquiror principle and proximate-cause exception to the appraisal analysis and excluded the value to be realized from the sale of assets planned by Perelman in its determination because the increase in value of Technicolor would not exist but for the merger and the acquiring party. Cinerama and Cede appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Holland, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.