Howing Co. v. Nationwide Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
826 F.2d 1470 (1987)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Howing Company (plaintiff) owned a minority share in the stock of Nationwide Corporation (defendant). Nationwide solicited proxy votes from Howing and other shareholders to approve Nationwide’s freezeout merger with its corporate parent. The merger was designed to cash out Nationwide’s public shareholders and privatize the company. The proxy statement listed factors that Nationwide’s investment banker reviewed before concluding that the transaction would be financially fair to the shareholders, but the statement neither weighted those factors nor discussed them in any detail. Howing sued, accusing Nationwide of having breached its fiduciary duty by failing to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 13e-3 disclosure requirements and by violating various Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules against securities fraud. The federal district court ruled that § 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) gave Howing a private right of action to bring its suit. However, the district court also ruled that private litigants could bring fraud charges only to the extent that omitted or misleading disclosures were intended to defraud investors. The district court found no evidence of fraudulent intent on Nationwide’s part, and therefore, the court dismissed the case. Howing appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merritt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.