Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp.
Delaware Supreme Court
88 A.3d 635 (2014)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (M & F) (defendant) was a 43 percent stockholder in its subsidiary, M & F Worldwide Corp. (Worldwide) (defendant). M & F bought the remaining common stock of Worldwide to fully own Worldwide and to take it private. This merger transaction was conditioned on receiving the approval of both (1) a special committee appointed by Worldwide’s board of directors and (2) a majority vote of Worldwide’s minority stockholders. The special committee and the minority stockholders approved the merger. Alan Kahn and other Worldwide minority stockholders (the objectors) (plaintiffs) sued M & F and Worldwide, alleging they had breached fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders during the merger. The objectors claimed the merger’s validity should be reviewed using the entire-fairness standard. The objectors also argued that the merger was invalid because some special-committee members had social and business relationships with M & F. M & F and Worldwide argued the merger should be reviewed using the business-judgment rule. Under the business-judgment rule, the merger would be invalidated only if no rational person could have believed that the merger was favorable to Worldwide’s minority stockholders. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the objectors’ claims. The objectors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
