In re NCS Healthcare, Inc., Shareholders Litigation

825 A.2d 240 (2002)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re NCS Healthcare, Inc., Shareholders Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery
825 A.2d 240 (2002)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Failing pharmacy-service provider NCS Healthcare, Inc. (NCS) looked for ways to restructure for over a year. In 2001, NCS approached pharmacy company Omnicare, Inc., about a possible merger, but Omnicare was interested only in buying NCS’s assets in bankruptcy, which would leave nothing for NCS shareholders. NCS contacted another potential buyer, leading healthcare company Genesis. Because two NCS directors voted 65 percent of its shares, making them interested in the transaction, the board formed an independent committee of the other two directors to negotiate the transaction. Genesis had previously lost a bidding war with Omnicare over another business, leaving bitter feelings between their principals. To lock up the transaction, Genesis demanded NCS sign an exclusivity agreement precluding negotiations with anyone else. When Omnicare learned NCS was negotiating a deal that might give a competitor an advantage, Omnicare faxed NCS an offer not involving a bankruptcy, then left voicemails. The exclusivity agreement kept NCS from responding to Omnicare, but NCS used Omnicare’s offer to negotiate better terms with Genesis. The next day, Genesis sweetened its offer but also demanded that the majority shareholders agree to approve the merger—and gave NCS until midnight the next day to accept. The NCS board recommended the Genesis merger to NCS shareholders, and the majority shareholders signed agreements. The next day, Omnicare again outbid Genesis. The NCS board withdrew its recommendation but recognized that its contractual obligations to Genesis prevented NCS from accepting Omnicare’s offer and that the majority-shareholder agreements ensured NCS shareholders would approve the Genesis merger. NCS minority shareholders (plaintiffs) sued claiming the directors breached their duty of care and requested a preliminary injunction to block the merger.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lamb, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership