Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

In re Pure Resources, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery
2002 Del. Ch. Lexis 112, 808 A.2d 421 (Del. Ch. 2002)


Unocal Corporation (Unocal) (defendant) owned 65.4 percent of Pure Resources, Inc. (Pure) stock. Pure's management controlled between a quarter and a third of Pure stock. There were five Unocal-designated directors, two management-designated directors, and one jointly designated director. Unocal had a business opportunities agreement, which provided that as long as Unocal owned 35 percent of Pure, Pure's business activities would be limited and Unocal could compete with Pure. Pure's management had put agreements with Unocal that provided the managers better incentives than common shareholders when tendering shares. Unocal had access to Pure's non-public information. Unocal made an offer to buy the rest of Pure's stock. The offer contained a non-waivable majority-of-the-minority provision, a waivable condition that the tender give it 90 percent ownership, and a planned second-step, short-form merger. The "minority" included shareholders who were affiliated with Unocal and Pure's management. An independent special committee was formed to consider the offer. The committee retained its own advisors and negotiated the offer price with Unocal. The special committee did not deal with Unocal as aggressively as it would have with a third-party bidder, such as by adopting a poison pill. Unocal refused to raise its price, and the special committee voted against the offer. Pure's minority shareholders (plaintiffs) sought a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that the offer was inadequate and should be subject to the entire fairness standard. The defendants argued that the offer should not be subject to the entire fairness standard, but the Solomon standard, which they had met. Solomon v. Pathe Communications Corp., 672 A.2d 35 (Del. 2010).

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Strine, 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 499,000 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 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial