Prudent Real Estate Trust v. Johncamp Realty, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
599 F.2d 1140 (2d Cir. 1979)
- Written by John Caddell, JD
Facts
On March 12, 1979, Johncamp Realty, Inc. (Johncamp) (defendant) announced a tender offer to purchase any and all shares of stock of Prudent Real Estate Trust (Prudent) (plaintiff) at roughly a 40 percent premium over the current market price. Johncamp was a close corporation with two shareholders: Johncamp Netherland Antilles, N.V. (Johncamp N.V.), which was controlled by Robert Campeau, and The Pacific Company (Pacific), controlled by John Wertin. Wertin exercised day-to-day control over Johncamp. As required, Johncamp filed a Schedule 14D disclosure with the SEC. The Schedule 14D stated that 80 percent of the financing for the tender offer would come from Campeau, who had a $50 million line of credit at a Canadian bank. Pacific would provide the remaining 20 percent, which it would obtain from Wertin and his enterprises. A section of the disclosure form titled “Item 9: Financial Statements of Certain Bidders” was answered, “Not applicable, see Exhibit 1.” Exhibit 1 consisted of financial statements concerning Campeau. On March 16, 1979, Prudent sued Johncamp and its affiliates, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the tender offer on the grounds that the Schedule 14D did not include any financial information about Wertin or his holdings. The trial court denied the requested relief, and Prudent appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
