TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. case brief summary
426 U.S. 438 (1976)
CASE FACTS
Respondent shareholder brought an action against petitioner companies claiming that their joint proxy statement was incomplete and materially misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n (a). Respondent's claim under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-3 was that petitioners failed to state in the proxy statement that the transfer of certain shareholder interests to the acquiring company had given said company control over the target company. Respondent's claim under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9 was that both companies omitted material facts from the proxy statement relating to the degree of control over the target company.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court which granted partial summary judgment to respondent shareholder. A genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether there was manipulation sufficient to bar summary judgment. None of the omissions claimed to have been in violation were materially misleading as a matter of law.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
426 U.S. 438 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Certiorari was granted to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit because the standard
applied by the Court of Appeals in resolving the question of
materiality in the proxy rules promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission appeared to conflict with the standard applied by
other appellate courts.CASE FACTS
Respondent shareholder brought an action against petitioner companies claiming that their joint proxy statement was incomplete and materially misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C.S. § 78n (a). Respondent's claim under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-3 was that petitioners failed to state in the proxy statement that the transfer of certain shareholder interests to the acquiring company had given said company control over the target company. Respondent's claim under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9 was that both companies omitted material facts from the proxy statement relating to the degree of control over the target company.
DISCUSSION
- Genuine issues of fact existed as to whether the acquisition of certain shareholder interests in the target had resulted in a change of control.
- Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-3 .
- Certain omissions of fact were material as a matter of law under 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9 .
- The Court reversed the partial summary judgment granted to respondent since the proxy statement prominently displayed the fact that the acquiring company owned a percentage of the outstanding shares in the target company.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court which granted partial summary judgment to respondent shareholder. A genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether there was manipulation sufficient to bar summary judgment. None of the omissions claimed to have been in violation were materially misleading as a matter of law.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment