United States: Delaware Court Determines That Controlling Stockholder Has No Duty Of Self-Sacrifice For The Benefit Of Minority Stockholders

Last Updated: September 4 2012
Article by Alan J. Stone, Roland Hlawaty and David Schwartz

Also Discusses Applicability Of Revlon Standard To 35% Cash/65% Stock Merger

In In Re Synthes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,1 the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to impose the more exacting entire fairness standard of review based on the allegation that the controlling stockholder was conflicted in a merger transaction because the target company executed a merger agreement with Johnson & Johnson that consisted of 65% stock and 35% cash for all of the target's outstanding shares instead of pursuing an all-cash private equity consortium bid that would have only cashed out the minority stockholders but required the controlling stockholder to roll substantially all of his equity into equity of the surviving company. The Court based its decision on the "basic understanding that when a stockholder who is also a fiduciary receives the same consideration for her shares as the rest of the shareholders, their interests are aligned" and therefore the controlling stockholder would not have "a conflicting interest in the Merger in the sense that he derived a personal financial benefit 'to the exclusion of, and detriment to, the minority stockholders'". Additionally, the Court also held that the mixed merger consideration failed to qualify as a "change of control" subject to the enhanced scrutiny of a Revlon2 analysis because the control of the corporation post merger would remain "in a large, fluid market" and that the mix of 65% stock and 35% cash was nearly equivalent consideration to binding Delaware Supreme Court precedent that held consideration of 33% cash and 67% stock did not trigger enhanced scrutiny review under Revlon. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on all counts.


Synthes, Inc. "was a global medical device company incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Switzerland, whose common stock traded on the SIX Swiss Exchange, and at the end of the 2010 fiscal year , had a market capitalization exceeding $15 billion. The largest stockholder of Synthes was Swiss billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss, who directly held 38.5% of the Synthes' stock, and according to the plaintiffs', controlled approximately another 13.25% through his control of shares owned by family members and trusts.

In April 2010, as part of its ongoing review of strategic initiatives, the Board decided, with the support of Mr. Wyss, to explore the possibility of a potential sale of the company. The Board appointed an independent lead director to lead such process and hired Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC as its financial advisor. The Company proceeded to conduct what the Court characterized as "an open-ended and deliberative sales process" in which nine "logical strategic buyers with the financial capacity to acquire a company of Synthes' large size" were contacted in September 2010, followed by six private equity firms being contacted in November 2010. Of the strategic bidders, only J&J emerged, submitting an initial non-binding offer to acquire all of Synthes at an indicative price range of CHF (Swiss Franc) 145-150 per share, with at least 60% of the consideration to be in the form of J&J stock. Of the six private equity firms, only three firms remained through the bidding stages, with each indicating an unwillingness to independently finance the transaction. Attentive to this concern, in January 2011, Synthes determined to permit the three remaining private equity firms to club for bidding purposes. On February 9, 2011, the private equity consortium submitted an all cash bid of CHF 151 per share to acquire Synthes but their bid was subject to Mr. Wyss converting a substantial portion of his equity into equity of the surviving company. While recognizing that the consortium's all-cash bid represented greater value certainty, the Board also recognized that such bid was riskier because the ability to finance such transaction would depend on the financing markets and require Mr. Wyss to roll substantially all of his equity into a less liquid investment.

Accordingly, beginning in February 2011, at the Board's direction, the lead independent director negotiated with J&J exclusively, initially informing J&J that Synthes had received a competing bid in amounts higher than J&J's initial bid. Following several months of due diligence review, J&J increased its offer in April 2011 to CHF 159, with 65% being in J&J stock, which implied a 26% premium to Synthes' average trading price during the preceding month and an implied equity value of $21.3 billion. The merger agreement was approved by Synthes' Board on April 25, 2011, with Synthes' stockholders approving the transaction on December 15, 2011.

From making its initial bid in February 2011 through December 2011, the private equity consortium remained silent; moreover, at no time did a third party interloper emerge.

The Court's Analysis

Plaintiffs' Allegations

The plaintiffs challenged the fairness of the transaction to the minority stockholders on three related grounds, alleging that the J&J transaction (i) was a conflicted transaction subject to entire fairness review because the controlling stockholder, based on financial motives adverse to the interests of the minority stockholders, unfairly prevented Synthes from pursuing the all-cash bid from the private equity consortium, (ii) was an "end stage" transaction following which Synthes stockholders would never be able to receive a control premium for their shares, and as a result, should be subject to enhanced scrutiny under a Revlon analysis and (iii) contained unreasonable deal protections precluding more attractive third-party bids, and as a result, should be subject to enhanced scrutiny under a Unocal3 analysis.

The Business Judgment Rule applies to a merger resulting from an open and deliberative sale process when a controlling stockholder shares the control premium ratably with the minority

The Court noted that one way for a plaintiff to rebut the presumption that a board's decision is entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule is to "allege that...the controlling stockholder received materially different terms from the third party in the merger than the minority stockholders", and as a result, the transaction should be subject to an entire fairness review. The basis for such an argument is that the "controller used its power over the company to cause the company to enter into a transaction that was not equal to all the stockholders, and unfair to the minority because the controller unfairly diverted proceeds that should have been shared ratably with all stockholders to itself."

The Court viewed the plaintiffs' allegations as unconvincing and "ginned up" when plaintiffs asserted that "Wyss received liquidity benefits that were not shared equally with the rest of the stockholders and colored his decision to support the Merger and to supposedly improperly reject further consideration of the Partial Company Bid."

In the Court's determination, "Wyss' supposed liquidity conflict was not really a conflict at all because he and the minority stockholders wanted the same thing: liquid currency and, all things being equal, at the highest dollar value amount of that currency. If there is anything even more liquid than J&J stock, it's cash...Wyss had little reason not to prefer an all-cash deal if the PE Club was willing to out-bid J&J on terms equally available to all shareholders." To the Court, this logically explained why Wyss supported a consortium private equity bid. Putting this all into context, the Court noted a controlling stockholder, given its large financial stake, would have a "natural incentive" to obtain the best price for its shares, and therefore, as "a general matter,...if one wishes to protect minority stockholders, there is a good deal of utility to making sure that when controlling stockholders afford the minority pro rata treatment, they know that they have docked within the safe harbor created by the business judgment rule."

In summation, the Court stated that "Delaware law does not...impose on controlling stockholders a duty to engage in self-sacrifice for the benefit of minority shareholders. That is, the duty to put the 'best interest of the corporation and its shareholders' above 'any interest ... not shared by the stockholders generally' does not mean that the controller has to subrogate his own interests so that the minority stockholders can get the deal that they want."

Revlon does not apply, and even if it did, the Board did not breach its Revlon duties

The Court noted that "under binding authority of our Supreme Court..., Revlon duties only apply when a corporation undertakes a transaction that results in the sale or change of control. Putting aside the reality that the plaintiffs...were moving from a company under the control of Wyss to receiving stock in company that had no controlling stockholder, and thus is already an odd case to apply Revlon, the mixed consideration Merger does not qualify as a change of control under our Supreme Court's precedent. A change of control 'does not occur for purposes of Revlon where control of the corporation remains, post-merger, in a large, fluid market.' Here, the Merger consideration consists of a mix of 65% stock and 35% cash, with the stock portion being stock in a company whose shares are held in large, fluid market...[The] Supreme Court held that a merger transaction involving nearly equivalent consideration of 33% cash and 67% stock did not trigger Revlon review when there was no basis to infer that the stock portion of that consideration was stock in a controlled company. That decision is binding precedent." Moreover, even if Revlon did apply, the Court cited numerous actions taken by Wyss and the Board – including the duration of the sale process and its open-ended, deliberative, and non-discriminatory nature – to suggest that Wyss and the Board likely chose a reasonable course of action to achieve the highest value reasonably attainable for Synthes stockholders.

The deal protections were not reasonable and not preclusive

The Court characterized the plaintiffs' allegations in this context as "half-hearted", noting that the plaintiffs failed to make any colorable argument as to why the J&J deal protections would have unreasonably precluded a third party interloper from making a higher bid. Although Wyss had entered into a voting agreement and there was a "force the vote" provision that required Synthes' Board to submit the merger proposal to its stockholders despite the Synthes Board having changed its recommendation with respect to the J&J merger, the Court noted that if "a better topping bid was available, Synthes' stockholders could have voted down the Merger and opened the door to that better bid...[B]ecause the Board had deliberately searched the market and was seeking to close a favorable deal with the last remaining bidder, it had a firm market basis to make the decision about how likely a later emerging bid was and to judge what concessions in terms of deal protections were necessary in order to land the one huge fish it actually had on the hook. This court should be particularly reluctant to deem unreasonable a board's decision to use deal protections as part of the negotiating strategy to pull the best bid from the final bidder or bidders who emerge from an open process on the theory that some party that has already had a chance to make a real bid without having to hurdle any deal protection barrier at all will somehow come to a different realization of the company's value, or that some unexpected bidder will emerge from an unexplored and overlooked dusty corner of our well-scoured capital markets."


The Court's rejection of the various alleged fiduciary breaches suggested by plaintiff stockholders, including the controlling stockholders' and the Board's decision to deal exclusively with an attractive strategic bidder and to agree to typical deal protection measures, demonstrates, even under a Revlon and Unocal analysis, the continued deference shown to independent boards who diligently supervise a sale process and do not discriminate against any particular buyer or buyer class. The Synthes decision is also useful in that reinforces the bounds of when Revlon scrutiny would not apply in mixed consideration mergers.


1 C.A. No. 6452 (Del. Ch. August 17, 2012).

2 Revlon v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986).

3 Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions