Enterra Corp. v. SGS Associates
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
600 F. Supp. 678 (1985)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 1982 SGS Associates (SGS) (defendant) acquired 5 percent of the outstanding common stock of Enterra Corporation (plaintiff). Enterra’s board of directors (the board) entered into a standstill agreement with SGS to create a stable relationship between the entities. The agreement prohibited SGS from acquiring more than 15 percent of Enterra’s outstanding stock, making an offer to acquire Enterra, or publicly announcing its desire to acquire Enterra. In 1984 SGS attempted to amend the standstill agreement to allow it to acquire more than 15 percent of Enterra’s outstanding stock and made an offer to acquire Enterra. The board rejected the amendment and the offer, and SGS made its offer public. The board filed a lawsuit against SGS in federal district court, seeking a permanent injunction preventing SGS from violating the standstill agreement. SGS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the board to consider the adequacy of SGS’s offer to acquire Enterra and, if the offer was rejected, to put the offer up for a shareholder vote. SGS argued that the board had a fiduciary duty to Enterra’s shareholders to consider the adequacy of any offer of acquisition and to allow the shareholders to decide whether to accept or reject the offer, and that the board breached this duty by entering into the standstill agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Broderick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 829,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.