Smith v. Van Gorkom
Delaware Supreme Court
488 A.2d 858 (1985)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jerome Van Gorkom, the CEO of Trans Union Corporation (Trans Union), engaged in his own negotiations with a third party for a buyout/merger with Trans Union. Prior to negotiations, Van Gorkom determined the value of Trans Union to be $55 per share and during negotiations agreed in principle on a merger. There was no evidence showing how Van Gorkom came up with this value other than Trans Union’s market price at the time of $38 per share. Subsequently, Van Gorkom called a meeting of Trans Union’s senior management, followed by a meeting of the board of directors (defendants). Senior management reacted very negatively to the idea of the buyout. However, the board of directors approved the buyout at the next meeting, based mostly on an oral presentation by Van Gorkom. The meeting lasted two hours, and the board of directors did not have an opportunity to review the merger agreement before or during the meeting. The directors had no documents summarizing the merger, nor did they have justification for the sale price of $55 per share. Smith and other shareholders (plaintiffs) brought a class-action suit against the Trans Union board of directors, alleging that the directors’ decision to approve the merger was uninformed. The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the directors. The shareholders appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Horsey, J.)
Dissent (McNeilly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
