Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

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

669 A.2d 79 (Del. 1995)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

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

Delaware Supreme Court

669 A.2d 79 (Del. 1995)

Facts

In Lynch I, Alan Kahn (plaintiff), a minority shareholder of Lynch Communication Systems, Inc. (Lynch) (defendant), challenged a cash-out merger dominated by Lynch's controlling shareholder, Alcatel U.S.A. Corp. (Alcatel) (defendant). The case was remanded to the court of chancery to reexamine the merger with the burden of proof on Alcatel. The court held that the defendants met the burden of proving that the merger was entirely fair to Lynch shareholders. The court found that the transaction was conducted with fair dealing. Lynch faced a development hurdle due to a lack of technology. The merger with Celwave Systems, Inc. (Celwave) would remedy this weakness. Alcatel offered to buy Lynch as an alternative to the Celwave proposal, after Lynch's chief executive officer (CEO) told Alcatel that a cash-out merger with Alcatel would be better. Alcatel vetoed the acquisition of Telco Systems, Inc. (Telco), because Telco was not profitable, and its technology was limited. Although being coerced, the independent committee did negotiate an increase in price from $14 to $15.50 per share. Alcatel paid cash for all shares tendered. In finding the price fair, the court accepted on the valuation by Alcatel's investment banker, which was $15.50 to $16.00 per share. The valuation was based on the market stock price, plus a merger premium. The court also considered the valuations by the independent committee's two investment bankers, which were $16.50 to $17.50 per share. The court rejected the valuation by Kahn's expert, which was $18.25 per share, because it found the valuation methodology flawed. Therefore, the court of chancery held that the defendants had proven the entire fairness of the transaction. Kahn appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Walsh, 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 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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 546,000 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
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 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