United States: Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Revlon Does Not Require An Active Market Check

Last Updated: January 14 2015
Article by Jason M. Halper and Peter J. Rooney

On December 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's November decision to preliminarily enjoin for 30 days a vote by C&J Energy Services stockholders on a merger with Nabors Red Lion Limited, to allow time for C&J's board of directors to explore alternative transactions.  The Supreme Court decision clarifies that in a sale-of-control situation, Revlon and its progeny require an effective, but not necessarily active, market check, and there is no "specific route that a board must follow" in fulfilling fiduciary duties.

The decision also reaffirms the type of record that must be made to support a mandatory preliminary injunction, a type of injunction that requires parties to take affirmative actions as opposed to merely maintaining the status quo.  The Court found that the Chancery Court "blue penciled" the merger agreement, and in the process stripped Nabors of its contractual rights, by effectively inserting a go-shop provision into the contract where the parties never agreed to one.  Moreover, the Chancery Court improperly did so without finding that Nabors aided and abetted a fiduciary duty breach and based its holding only on disputed facts that were not adjudicated following a trial.  While the decision does not break new ground, it is significant in better defining directors' duties when selling control and articulating the limits of a court's ability to issue mandatory preliminary injunctions.


C&J and Nabors operate in the oil field completion and services business.  The C&J-Nabors merger agreement, which was announced in June 2014, provided for the formation of a new company in Bermuda ("New C&J"), which would issue stock to the stockholders of both companies and also pay cash consideration to Nabors stockholders.  Following the closing of the transaction, former Nabors stockholders would own approximately 53% of the outstanding New C&J shares, with existing C&J stockholders owning approximately 47% of the combined company.  C&J's management would lead the merged company. 

The agreement also provided that four members of C&J's board would be appointed to and comprise the majority of the new entity's board with guaranteed five-year terms, although the identity of the non-management directors who would join the merged company's board was not yet decided at the time the agreement was signed.  C&J's post-merger minority status was driven by tax considerations, with the transaction structured as an inversion and the combined company registered in Bermuda.

On November 24, the Chancery Court granted a 30-day preliminary injunction during which the C&J board was ordered to explore alternatives to the Nabors transaction. The Court's rationale primarily was that the C&J board did not affirmatively seek out other potential merger partners either before or after signing the merger agreement.


  • Revlon requires an "effective," but not necessarily "active," market check.  While Revlon holds that in a change-of-control transaction, a board "must not take actions inconsistent with achieving the highest immediate value reasonably attainable," Revlon does not require a board to "set aside its own view of what is best for the corporation's stockholders and run an auction."  Rather, in assessing whether a board satisfied its obligation to make "a reasonable decision, not a perfect decision," the transaction should be subject to an "effective market check," meaning that there is an opportunity to receive higher bids and the board has "flexibility" to accept any such offers.  Active solicitation of higher bids is not necessarily required.  For context, the Court also offered a reminder of the "too often forgotten" fact that unlike here, Revlon, QVC and their progeny involved "board resistance to a competing bid" to a pending merger agreement that threatened to "impede the emergence" of a higher-priced deal.

    Here, according to the Supreme Court, the lower court could not have found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims when it incorrectly applied Revlon and in light of facts suggesting an appropriate sales process and effective market check: (i) the merger agreement provided the C&J board with a "fiduciary out," allowing it to (a) negotiate with third parties under certain circumstances, and (b) terminate the deal in favor of a superior proposal for a "modest" $65 million termination fee (2.2% of the deal), but in the five months following the signing of the merger agreement no other bidders emerged; (ii) the C&J board had no improper motive and was well-informed about C&J's value; and (iii) stockholders were adequately informed and had the opportunity to vote on the deal. 
  • "Blue penciling" a contract in the form of a mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy that requires an appropriate procedural and factual basis.  The lower court's ruling preliminarily enjoined C&J's shareholder vote for thirty days, during which C&J was ordered to actively shop itself.  Even though the C&J and Nabors merger agreement did not provide for such a go-shop period, the lower court found that requiring C&J to solicit superior bids would not constitute a breach of the contract.  The Supreme Court held that the lower court should not have issued such an injunction based on disputed facts that were not adjudicated following a trial.  As importantly, the Supreme Court observed that the court's equitable authority is not "uncabined" and cautioned about issuing such injunctions, at least in the circumstances here: the record did not support forcing "Nabors to endure a judicially-ordered infringement of its contractual rights that would, by judicial fiat, not even count as a breach of Nabors' rights."  This conclusion was especially warranted given the absence of any finding that Nabors acted wrongfully and the fact that stockholders are "capable of addressing that [alleged] harm themselves" by voting against the transaction. 
    The decision reinforces the respect Delaware courts will accord to contractual rights and obligations negotiated and agreed to by an informed and independent board and the courts' reluctance to "take the decision out of" stockholders' hands when they have an opportunity to vote on a transaction on an informed basis.
  • Sufficient protections for selling stockholders in a merger agreement may make Revlon inapplicable.  The Supreme Court stated that the merger agreement contained certain provisions intended to "ensure" that C&J stockholders "would retain some control over New C&J."  In addition to providing that C&J directors would comprise a majority of the New C&J board and hold office for five-year terms and that C&J's CEO would lead the post-closing entity, the merger agreement provided that: (i) New C&J would have a bylaw requiring that all stockholders receive pro rata consideration in any sale of the company or major assets, and the by-law could not be repealed without unanimous stockholder approval; (ii) a vote of two-thirds of stockholders was required to amend other by-laws, sell the company, or issue stock for a five-year period; (iii) Nabors was subject to a five-year standstill, during which it could not acquire additional shares or solicit acquisition proposals; and (iv) a violation of the standstill would provide a basis to terminate the employment of certain members of the post-merger management team affiliated with Nabors.  The Court suggested, but did not decide, that the suite of protections negotiated for the benefit of C&J stockholders could "take the transaction out of the reach of Revlon," but the Court was reluctant to so hold in the context of an expedited appeal.  Of particular significance to the Court was the by-law ensuring the ability of C&J stockholders to share in any future control premium and that the by-law could not be repealed absent unanimous stockholder consent.  
  • Not every alleged conflict involving a financial advisor is sufficient to call the sales process into question.  The C&J-Nabors transaction initially was proposed by a Citi banker to C&J's CEO, Joshua Comstock.  Citi had also previously worked for Nabors and the banker who suggested the deal was a social acquaintance of Nabors' CEO.  C&J's primary financial advisor was Goldman Sachs.  When the companies began to negotiate, Nabors informed C&J that it wanted to use Goldman and suggested that C&J engage Citi.  Comstock agreed, saying it was "the right thing to do" since Citi suggested the deal.  The Court noted that Comstock admitted in his deposition that he felt that Citi was conflicted and that he felt that Citi was giving feedback to Petrello, Nabors' CEO, causing him to believe that when he was negotiating with Citi, he was also negotiating with Nabors.  The Supreme Court nonetheless held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits, suggesting that it was not persuaded sufficiently by the alleged conflict of interest.

    The Delaware courts have issued a number of decisions in the past several years, including In re Rural Metro Corp. Stockholders Litigation and In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation, critical of the conduct of financial advisors, including those based on undisclosed conflicts of interest.  The Supreme and Chancery Courts' decision here demonstrate that not every alleged conflict on the part of a financial advisor will rise to a level sufficient to call into question the board's sales process.  While Comstock's "perception of needing to 'negotiate' with his own financial advisor" suggested that the "deal process fell short of the ideal," that in and of itself did not justify a finding of a fiduciary duty breach by the C&J board, particularly where the conflict was by and large disclosed.  
  • The C&J CEO's pre-merger agreement negotiation of his post-closing compensation package did not constitute a fiduciary duty breach or create a conflict.  Neither the lower court nor the Supreme Court found that Comstock's efforts to secure an employment package as CEO of the combined entity rendered him conflicted or rose to the level of a fiduciary duty breach.  Comstock's compensation package was not part of the merger agreement, but was memorialized and endorsed in a side letter with Nabors' CEO. Although acknowledging that his "focus" on his compensation "casts shade on his motivations, as he ultimately secured a generous package," the Supreme Court pointed to a number of other facts undercutting such a conclusion.  These included evidence that selling to a private equity buyer or purchasing another substantial asset had the potential to provide similar benefits for Comstock, he faced "no threat to his tenure" and held 10% of C&J's outstanding common stock, giving him a "strong interest in maximizing the value of those shares."  In addition, the package was not binding on the board of New C&J, which had to approve it, and "most important[ly]" any potential conflict had to be "balanced against" the numerous communications between Comstock and the C&J board regarding the transaction and the "reality" that the board's "favorable view" of the deal was validated by the stock market reaction, which drove C&J's shares 20% higher in after-hours trading following the transaction announcement.

    The Court's ruling on this issue reinforces two themes in recent Delaware fiduciary duty jurisprudence.  First, as articulated in In re Comverge, Inc. Shareholders Litigation and In re: Crimson Exploration Inc. Stockholder Litigation significant stock ownership is a powerful argument against allegations that a director was conflicted or acted other than to maximize shareholder value.   Second, the fact that Comstock's compensation package was subject to approval by New C&J's board (as well as C&J stockholders on an advisory basis) cut against the charge that Comstock was conflicted or breached fiduciary duties.  A similar result was reached in Crimson, where the Chancery Court found that a large stockholder was not conflicted with respect to a merger transaction in part because certain side benefits negotiated by the stockholder with the acquirer were not part of the merger agreement itself even though they were "anticipated" at the time the agreement was signed.  Again, this suggests that it may be advantageous to defer binding agreements on matters that may create a conflict until after a transaction is approved, although doing so carries associated risk of ultimately not securing the benefits.

To read the full opinion, please click here.

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.

Events from this Firm
23 Jan 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

New York partner Rich Martinelli will be a featured panelist during the Society of Physician Engineers' event, "Intellectual Property Law & Tax Credits for Life Science Companies."

29 Jan 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Please join Orrick partner Jay Jurata at this year's Joint NGMN and ITU Conference on January 29-30 in Geneva, Switzerland.

27 Feb 2019, Conference, Las Vegas, United States

Partner John Narducci will be discussing The Impact of the Tax Reform Act on Valuations at ABI’s Valcon 2019 Conference.

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