Nevada Supreme Court Finds Board Resolution In Merger Agreement

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
In 2016, respondent China Yida Holding, Co. (CY), a Nevada corporation, merged with a private holding company, taking CY private and delisting it from the Nasdaq stock exchange.
United States Nevada Corporate/Commercial Law

In 2016, respondent China Yida Holding, Co. (CY), a Nevada corporation, merged with a private holding company, taking CY private and delisting it from the Nasdaq stock exchange.  The merger agreement and the proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission provided for dissenters' rights.  When a stockholder attempted to exercise dissenters' rights, the company took the position that the stockholder never had dissenters rights because Nevada's market-out exception applied.  

Nevada's market-out exception provides that there is no right to dissent in favor of any class of securities that is a "covered security" as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) or (B) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77r(b)(1)(A) or (B), as amended., unless the articles of incorporation of the corporation issuing the class or series or the resolution of the board of directors approving the plan of merger, conversion or exchange expressly provide otherwise.   CY's articles did not provide otherwise.  Thus, the only question was whether a board resolution expressly provided otherwise.  The Nevada Supreme Court found such a resolution not in the minutes of a board meeting but in the introduction to the merger agreement:

What constitutes the board's resolution is not limited by any particular formal requirements, and here,  the statement of the board's approving the merger agreement in the introduction to the merger agreement constitutes the relevant board resolution.  The resolution here provided the shareholders with a right to dissent because the merger agreement envisioned that there was authority to dissent that could be validly exercised. In so doing, the resolution provided a right to dissent.  This reading is supported by contemporaneous representations to shareholders that they had rights to dissent and by all of the directors that the transaction was fair because objecting shareholders had a right to dissent.

Pope Investments, LLC v. China Yida Holding, Co.,  137 Nev. Adv. Op. 33.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More