Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

CTS Corporation v. Dynamics Corporation of America

481 U.S. 69, 107 S. Ct. 1637, 95 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1987)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

CTS Corporation v. Dynamics Corporation of America

United States Supreme Court

481 U.S. 69, 107 S. Ct. 1637, 95 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1987)

Play video

Facts

Indiana passed a law (Indiana Act) requiring a majority vote of all disinterested shareholders in a corporation to give voting rights to an entity that acquires “control shares” in the corporation—an amount of shares that would bring the entity’s amount of shares above 20, 33 1/3, or 50 percent. This gave the minority shareholders a chance to consider the fairness of the tender offer collectively to make a well-informed decision in their best interests. Under the Indiana Act, the shareholders must vote on whether to grant the voting rights to the acquirer within 50 days of the acquisition. Dynamics Corporation of America (Dynamics) (plaintiff) owned 9.6 percent of the stock of CTS Corporation (CTS) (defendant) when it announced a tender offer for another million shares of CTS, an amount that would have brought Dynamics’s ownership interest above the 20 percent threshold under the Indiana Act. Dynamics brought suit alleging that the Indiana Act was preempted by the federal Williams Act, and that the Indiana Act violated the Commerce Clause. The Williams Act was passed to regulate hostile tender offers and protect minority shareholders by putting them “on an equal footing with the takeover bidder.” The Williams Act required (1) the offeror to disclose certain information about the offer and the offeror’s business, and (2) certain procedural rules, including a requirement that the offer remain open for at least 20 business days. Dynamics argued, among other things, that the 50-day allowance under the Indiana Act conflicted with this 20-day period. The district court ruled that the Williams Act preempted the Indiana Act and that the Indiana Act violated the Commerce Clause. The court of appeals affirmed. CTS appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

Dissent (White, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 604,000 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
  2. 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 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership