Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ 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)



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


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 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial