Morrison v. Berry

191 A.3d 268 (2018)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Morrison v. Berry

Delaware Supreme Court
191 A.3d 268 (2018)


In October 2015, Apollo Global Management LLC (Apollo) expressed interest in purchasing The Fresh Market (TFM). Apollo indicated that it had an exclusive partnership with TFM’s founder, Ray Berry, and his son, Brett Berry (defendants), and had discussed an equity rollover with the Berrys. On October 15, 2015, TFM’s board (defendants) met to review Apollo’s proposal and authorized the formation of a strategic transaction committee (the committee). At the meeting, Ray denied having any relationship with Apollo. However, in a November 28, 2015 email, Ray’s counsel indicated that Ray had made an agreement with Apollo in October. In early 2016, TFM announced plans to go private in a transaction involving a tender offer by an Apollo-controlled entity. TFM filed Schedule 14D-9 disclosures articulating the board’s reasons for recommending that TFM’s stockholders accept the tender offer. The 14D-9 included a description of the events leading to the transaction but (1) omitted the November 28 email’s reference to an October agreement between Ray and Apollo, (2) omitted previous statements by Ray expressing a preference for a transaction involving Apollo, (3) omitted a threat by Ray to sell his shares if TFM’s board did not commence a sale, and (4) did not fully explain why the committee had been formed in October 2015. TFM’s 14D-9 incorporated by reference Apollo’s public disclosure concerning the TFM transaction. TFM stockholder Elizabeth Morrison (plaintiff) suspected based on the disclosures that TFM’s directors had breached their fiduciary duties during the sale process. The tender offer subsequently closed as scheduled, with 68.2 percent of the outstanding shares tendered. Morrison sued the Berrys and TFM’s directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging breach-of-fiduciary-duty clams. The Berrys and TFM’s directors moved to dismiss, asserting that under the Delaware Supreme Court’s holding in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, the merger should be reviewed under the deferential business-judgment rule because the tender offer had been accepted by a majority of TFM’s stockholders. The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss. Morrison appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Valihura, 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 741,000 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 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 741,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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