Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 15,700+ case briefs...

Kahn v. Lynch Communication Sys., Inc. (Lynch I)

Delaware Supreme Court
638 A.2d 1110 (Del. 1994)


Alcatel U.S.A. Corp. (Alcatel) (defendant) owed 43.3 percent of Lynch Communication Systems, Inc. (Lynch) (defendant) stock. Lynch's charter required a supermajority vote to approve any business combination. The Lynch board had 11 directors, five of which were Alcatel designees. Lynch's management recommended that Lynch acquire Telco Systems, Inc. (Telco). Alcatel rejected this and proposed that Lynch acquire Celwave Systems, Inc. (Celwave), one of Alcatel's affiliates. The Lynch board established an independent committee to consider the Celwave proposal. Alcatel's investment banker suggested a stock-for-stock merger. The committee rejected the proposal, because its own investment banker said Celwave was overvalued. Instead of further negotiating with the Lynch board about its Celwave proposal, Alcatel responded by offering to buy the rest of Lynch's stock for $14 cash per share. The committee determined that $14 was inadequate. After a few rounds of negotiations, the committee accepted Alcatel's offer of $15.50 per share. Although some committee members considered $15.50 inadequate, they accepted the offer under the pressure that there were no alternatives for Lynch, because Alcatel could block any alternative transaction and would proceed with a hostile tender offer if this one got rejected. The Lynch board approved the cash-out merger based on the committee's recommendation. Alcatel's nominees did not participate in the approval. Alan Kahn (plaintiff), a minority shareholder of Lynch, sued to challenge the cash-out merger. The court of chancery found that Alcatel owed the fiduciary duties of a controlling shareholder to other Lynch shareholders, because Alcatel exercised actual control over Lynch by dominating its corporate affairs. However, the court held that the independent committed effectively negotiated the transactions at arm's length, and therefore, the burden of proof shifted to the challenging shareholder, Kahn. Kahn appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Holland, 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 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 330,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 15,700 briefs, keyed to 213 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.