NACCO Industries, Inc. v. Applica Inc.

997 A.2d 1 (2009)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

NACCO Industries, Inc. v. Applica Inc.

Delaware Court of Chancery
997 A.2d 1 (2009)


During merger discussions, NACCO Industries, Inc. (NACCO) (plaintiff) entered a standstill agreement with Applica Incorporated (defendant) restricting NACCO from purchasing Applica stock outside of the merger. In July 2006, NACCO and Applica signed a merger agreement that included deal-protection devices such as a nonsolicitation provision prohibiting Applica from soliciting offers from other bidders. Under the agreement, if Applica received an unsolicited and superior proposal, Applica was obligated to promptly inform NACCO and keep NACCO informed. Applica could terminate the agreement to accept a superior proposal and pay NACCO a $4 million termination fee and a $2 million expense reimbursement. After signing the merger agreement, and without informing NACCO, Applica allegedly initiated communication with another bidder, Harbert Management Corporation (Harbinger) (defendant), regarding a potentially superior transaction. Prior to making an offer, Harbinger purchased Applica shares in the market and filed multiple Schedule 13D reports. Each Schedule 13D stated that Harbinger’s purchases were for investment purposes and not to acquire control of Applica. By August 2006, Harbinger owned approximately 39 percent of Applica’s stock. In September 2006, Harbinger filed another amendment to its Schedule 13D to disclose Harbinger intended to acquire control of Applica and, simultaneously, offered to purchase all Applica stock not owned by Harbinger for a per-share price superior to NACCO’s offer. In October 2006, Applica terminated the NACCO merger agreement, paid the termination fee and expense reimbursement, and signed a merger agreement with Harbinger. A public bidding war for Applica stock ensued between Harbinger and NACCO, which Harbinger won. NACCO alleged Harbinger, through fraudulent Schedule 13D disclosures, had had an unfair bidding advantage by already owning nearly 40 percent of Applica and thus bidding on only 60 percent of the stock while NACCO was bidding on 100 percent. Therefore, every dollar that NACCO bid would cost Harbinger 60 cents. NACCO sued Applica for breach of contract and sued Harbinger for fraud and tortious interference with a contract. Applica and Harbinger filed motions to dismiss.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Laster, 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 742,000 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 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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 742,000 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
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 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