United States: In Re MFW Shareholders Litigation: Controlling Shareholder In Going-Private Transaction May Gain The Benefit Of The Business Judgment Rule

Last Updated: August 23 2013

Article by Joel C. Haims and James J. Beha II1

In a decision with great potential significance for the structuring of going-private transactions, Delaware Chancellor Leo Strine recently held in In re MFW Shareholders Litigation 2 that a merger with a controlling stockholder would be reviewed under the highly deferential business judgment rule rather than the "entire fairness" standard if the merger is structured to include certain procedural safeguards for minority shareholders.


As the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized, in litigation challenging board action, "[t]he choice of the applicable 'test' to judge director action often determines the outcome of the case."3 Most board action—including a decision to approve a third-party merger offer—is reviewed under the business judgment rule, which precludes the court from inquiring into the fundamental fairness of the deal. Under that rule, the court must dismiss any challenge to a corporate transaction unless the terms were so disparate than no rational person in good faith could have thought the transaction was fair.4

One notable exception to application of the business judgment rule is judicial review of a corporation's transactions with its controlling or dominating shareholder, such as a going-private transaction. Those transactions are generally considered under the "entire fairness" standard, requiring the controlling shareholder to affirmatively demonstrate both "fair dealing" with the board and that the transaction was completed at a fair price.5 The application of the "entire fairness" standard "normally will preclude dismissal of a complaint in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss."6

The Delaware Supreme Court has held that the burden under the entire fairness doctrine will be shifted to the plaintiff challenging a transaction if the transaction was approved either by an independent special committee of the board or by the majority of the non-controlling stockholders (i.e., a "majority-of-the-minority vote").7 But this shifting of the ultimate burden of proof does not change the fact that "the initial burden of establishing entire fairness rests upon the party who stands on both sides of the transaction."

8 As a result, even with one of those procedural safeguards in place, lawsuits challenging going-private transactions generally have a low threshold to survive a motion to dismiss. And, whoever bears the burden, entire fairness review requires a fact (and discovery) intensive review of the transaction. This means that virtually any lawsuit challenging a transaction with a controlling shareholder—regardless of its merits—will have settlement value simply because there is no feasible way for defendants to get the suit dismissed on the pleadings.


In In re MFW, the Delaware Chancery Court for the first time considered the proper standard to review a going-private transaction when the controlling shareholder has conditioned the transaction on both approval by an independent special committee of the board and a majority-of-the-minority vote. In In re MFW, Chancellor Strine concluded that such transactions should be reviewed under the business judgment rule because "[a] transactional structure with both these protections is fundamentally different from one with only one protection."9 The decision In re MFW has the potential to benefit both controlling and minority shareholders because it will encourage controlling shareholders to structure bids with the maximum procedural protection for the minority while allowing controlling shareholders to escape the cost and uncertainty of litigation under the entire fairness standard.

Factual Background

In re MFW involved a challenge to M&F Worldwide ("MFW")'s going-private transaction with its controlling shareholder, MacAndrews & Forbes, investor Ronald Perelman's holding company. From the start of the process, MacAndrews & Forbes agreed that it would only proceed with a transaction approved both by an independent special committee of MFW's board of directors and by a majority vote of MFW stockholders not affiliated with MacAndrews & Forbes.

MFW's board formed a special committee that chose its own independent legal and financial advisors and met eight times over the three-month course of negotiations. The record showed that negotiations with the special committee led MacAndrews & Forbes to raise its bid by $1 per share to $25 per share. After the special committee approved the merger, a majority of the minority of MFW stockholders voted to approve the merger as well.

Despite these procedural safeguards, the deal predictably spawned litigation against MacAndrews & Forbes, Perelman, and MFW's directors, alleging that the merger was unfair to minority stockholders.

The Court's Analysis

On a motion for summary judgment, MacAndrews & Forbes argued that while a going private merger by a controlling shareholder is subject to "entire fairness" review if it is subject only to either special committee approval or majority-of-the-minority approval, a transaction that is subject to both of these procedural safeguards is functionally akin to a transaction between unrelated parties and should be entitled to the protections of the business judgment rule.

The plaintiffs responded by arguing that requiring every controlling stockholder transaction to survive entire fairness review was good for minority holders and that requiring a majority-of-the-minority vote adds little marginal value to minority shareholders beyond special committee review because long-term stockholders who oppose the transaction simply sell-out to arbitrageurs who will vote to approve the transaction to lock in their short-term gains. For that reason, the plaintiffs argued that a transaction with both safeguards should be treated the same as a transaction with only one.

In a detailed and well-reasoned opinion, Chancellor Strine agreed with the defendants. He explained that the combination of the two safeguards provides significant additional minority protection. While a special committee ensures "that there is a bargaining agent who can negotiate price and address the collective action problem facing shareholders," a "majority of the minority vote provides stockholders a chance to vote on a merger proposed by a controller-dominated board." As a result, in Chancellor Strine's view, the two protections, while individually incomplete, "are complementary and effective in tandem" and "[a] transactional structure with both these protections is fundamentally different from one with only one protection."10

If controlling shareholders do not get some additional benefit from providing both of these complementary safeguards, they have no incentive to do so. Accordingly, Chancellor Strine reasoned that granting business judgment deference "would benefit minority stockholder because it will provide a strong incentive for controlling stockholders to accord minority investors the transactional structure that respected scholars believe will provide them the best protection."11


It should be noted that the plaintiff has recently appealed Chancellor Strine's decision in In re MFW. And while Chancellor Strine's decision is cogent and well-reasoned, he acknowledged the tension on this issue in the existing Delaware Supreme Court cases law.12

But if the decision stands, it provides controlling shareholders a clear outline of how to avoid entire fairness review in favor of more advantageous business judgment deference. Under In re MFW, controlling shareholder transactions would be judged under the business judgment rule if: (1) the transaction is approved by both a special committee and a majority-of-the-minority vote; (2) the special committee is independent of the controlling shareholder; (3) the special committee has power to reject the proposal and is free to retain independent legal and financial advisors; (4) the special committee meets its duty of care; and (5) the minority vote is non-waivable, fully informed, and uncoerced.


1 Joel Haims is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison & Foerster's New York office and co-chair of the firm's Securities Litigation, Enforcement, and White-Collar Defense Group. Jim Beha is a litigation associate in the New York office and a member of the firm's Securities Litigation, Enforcement, and White-Collar Defense Group.

2 67 A.3d 496 (Del. Ch. 2013).

3 Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75, 90 (Del. 1992); see also Nixon v. Blackwell, 626 A.2d 1366, 1376 (Del. 1993) ("It is often of critical importance whether a particular decision is one to which the business judgment rule applies or the entire fairness rule applies."); Lyman Johnson, After Enron: Remembering Loyalty Discourse in Corporate Law, 28 Del. J. of Corp. L. 67-68 (2003) ("burdens and standards of review often are outcome determinative").

4 See Sinclair Oil Corp v. Levien, 280 A.2d 717,720 (Del. 1971) ("A board of directors enjoys a presumption of sound business judgment, and its decision will not be disturbed if they can be attributed to any rational business purpose."); Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A.2d 345, 361 (Del. 1993) ("To rebut the [business judgment] rule, a shareholder plaintiff assumes the burden of providing evidence that directors, in reaching their challenged decision, breached [their duties of ] loyalty or due care. If a shareholder plaintiff fails to meet this evidentiary burden, the business judgment rule attaches to protect corporate officers and directors and the decision they make, and our courts will not second-guess these business judgments." (internal citations omitted)). The business judgment rule reflects the "cardinal precept of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware . . . that directors, rather than shareholders, manage the business and affairs of the corporation." Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 811 (Del. 1984).

5 Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., 93 A.2d 107, 110 (Del. 1952) (a majority shareholder standing "on both sides of the transaction, . . . bear[s] the burden of establishing its entire fairness"); see also Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 710 (Del. 1983); Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., 493 A.2d 929, 937 (1985).

6 Orman v. Cullman, 794 A.2d 5, 20 n.36 (Del. Ch. 2002).

7 Kahn v. Lynch Commc'ns Syst., 638 A.2d 1110, 1117 (Del. Ch. 1994).

8 Id.

9 67 A.3d at 503.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 See id. at 520 (noting that "there are broad statements in certain Supreme Court decisions that, if read literally and as binding holdings of law, say that the entire fairness standard applies to any merger with a controlling stockholder, regardless of the circumstances").

This article was originally published in Unsolicited Views - MoFo's monthly newsletter chronicling developments in hostile M+A, August 2013

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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