Hewlett v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
Delaware Court of Chancery
2002 WL 818091
In September 2001, Hewlett Packard Co. (HP) (defendant) entered into a merger agreement with Compaq Computer Corporation (Compaq). Based on conservative projections, HP’s management estimated that the merger would generate significant savings through synergies while causing relatively small revenue loss. The two companies began a thorough process of planning for integration. A special shareholder meeting to consider and vote on the merger was scheduled for March 19, 2002. In November 2001, Walter Hewlett, Edwin von Bronkhorst, and the William R. Hewlett Revocable Trust (the Hewlett Parties) (plaintiffs) announced that they opposed the merger and launched a proxy fight. Over the next few months, HP’s management made a number of public statements and filings reflecting their confidence that the merger would create value for shareholders. In January 2002, one advisor and several data points suggested that the original projections were overly optimistic. HP did not make this information public prior to the shareholder vote. By March 2002 it was clear that the shareholder vote would be close. Deutsche Bank, a holder of a significant number of shares, announced it would vote against the merger. HP’s management sought and obtained a meeting with the Deutsche Bank investment group. HP’s CEO made a presentation in which she reiterated HP’s enthusiasm about the merger and pleaded for Deutsche Bank to reconsider. She commented that Deutsche Bank’s vote was a significant moment in Deutsche Bank’s relationship with HP. Deutsche Bank performed work for HP in other capacities, and the Hewlett Parties interpreted the remark as threatening to cut business ties with Deutsche Bank if the company voted its shares against the merger. The Hewlett Parties also spoke at the meeting, arguing against the merger. Deutsche Bank changed course and decided to support the merger. At the shareholders meeting, the merger was approved by a slim margin. The Hewlett Parties sued HP, alleging that the company had fraudulently failed to release negative projections about the merger, and that they had improperly bought the vote of Deutsche Bank’s shares.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, 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 97,000 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.
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 153,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,500 briefs, keyed to 183 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.