Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re Meyers Parking System Inc.

Securities and Exchange Commission
Exchange Act Release No. 26,069 (1988)


Facts

The Fink-Gordon Group (Fink-Gordon) proposed a merger between Meyers Parking System Inc. (MPS) and MPS Acquisition Corporation (Acquisition) on March 18, 1988. Acquisition was controlled by Fink-Gordon and had been created for the purpose of completing the merger. Fink-Gordon held about 80 percent of MPS’s outstanding stock. The remaining 20 percent of MPS’s shareholders would be entitled to a merger price of $22 per share. MPS’s board appointed a special committee to evaluate the proposed merger. The committee met with difficulty and was dissolved. On May 11, Bear Stearns & Co. (Bear Stearns) was retained to evaluate the merger’s fairness. On June 28, Bear Stearns completed the analysis and informed Fink-Gordon that the merger price of $22 per share was unfair. After negotiations between Bear Stearns and Gordon-Fink, it was determined that $29.50 per share was fair. That day, on July 6, the board met to consider the merger at the new price. Bear Stearns gave a short presentation, explaining how the valuation of $29.50 per share had been reached. The board proposed and approved the merger resolution without significant analysis of the factors that supported the valuation of $29.50 per share. On July 8, MPS filed a Schedule 13E-3 transaction statement, and on July 18, Bear Stearns provided MPS with a written opinion stating that the merger price was fair. MPS’s Schedule 13E-3 stated that the factors considered in determining the fairness of the price included the current and historical market price of the shares, the book value, the going-concern value, the liquidation value, and the opinion of Bear Stearns. No detail as to the steps taken by Bear Stearns or the values calculated were provided. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted an action to determine if MPS had failed to comply with § 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(e), and Rule 13e-3 of the SEC, 17 C.F.R. 240.13e-3.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 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.

  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 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.