Shareholders suit dismissed on the basis of shareholder ratification

• Court of Chancery decision upheld by
  Delaware Supreme Court

Opinion - Justice Randy J. Holland

• PDF version 
• Affirms Delaware Chancery decision

Hyperlinked Index  

Introduction +

Background

• Challenged transactions I.A
• Revised amended complaint I.B
• Plaintiffs contentions I.C
• TNCLs cross-appeal I.D

Standard of review  II

Matters decided

• Matters outside complaint II.A
• Entire consent solicitation  II.B
• Judicial notice proper II.C
• Discovery properly denied  II.D
• Complaint properly dismissed II.E

Conclusion III

Opinion  - Chancellor Chandler

• PDF version 

Hyperlinked Index

Introduction I

• Directors weren't disinterested and independent I.A
• GM's pension crisis I.B
• Transactions I.C
• GMH shares I.D
• Allegations of unfair price and process I.E
• Fairness opinions I.F
• Manipulation of the GMH vote I.G
• Claims alleged in the complaint I.H

Analysis II

• Standard on a motion to dismiss II.A
• Does the motion to dismiss improperly rely on matters outside the pleadings? II.B
• Does the complaint sufficiently plead that there was
  no majority of independent and disinterested directors II.C

• Allegations of self-interests II.C.1
• Conflicts of the Investment Fund Committee II.C.2

• Shareholder ratification II.D

• Plaintiffs' vote manipulation claims II.D.1
  ◊  Contribution of GMH stock to the pension plans II.D.1.a
  ◊  Timing of announcement II.D.1.b
  ◊  Allegations of improper record date II.D.1.c
  ◊  Allegations of "special solicitations" II.D.1.d
• Plaintiffs' disclosure claims II.D.2
  ◊  Special dividend II.D.2.e
  ◊  Accuracy of financial advisors' analysis II.D.2.f
  ◊  Inadequacy of the PanAm Sat valuation II.D.2.g
  ◊  Misstatement of the legal effect of ratification II.D.2.h
  ◊  Contribution of GMH stock to the pension plans II.D.2.i
  ◊  GM's Restated Certificate of Incorporation II.D.2.j

• Does Article Seventh require a supermajority vote as applied to the Hughes transactions II.E
• Did the Hughes transactions violate Article Fourth II.F

News' motion to dismiss III

• News' 12(b)(4) argument III.A
• News' 12(b)(2) argument III.B
• News' 12(b)(6) argument III.C

• Plaintiffs' allegations of knowing participation are inadequate III.C.1
• Complaint describes arms-length negotiations III.C.2
• Nothing about the Hughes transactions was inherently wrongful III.C.3

Conclusion IV

Law firms

• Simpson Thacher April 2006  (At Pages 1-3)

Delaware General Corporation Law