LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN RE WESTERN NATIONAL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 15,927, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00015927, Merger, Committee, Special Committee, Del, Shareholders, Poulos, Depo, Transaction, Price, Directors, Dep, Evidence, Summary Judgment, Western National Board, Judgement, Negotiations, Independence, Dlj, Delaware, Management, Devlin, Hermance Depo, Supr, Disinterestedness, Shareholder, Stockholders, Stock, Control, Baker Depo, Material Fact, Tab, Poulos Dep, Richards Depo, Hermance Dep, Standstill Provision, Financial Advisor, Controlling Shareholder, Standstill Agreement, Llp, Robert , ContentID: 120239808

Case Documents
1 2000-05-22 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100435
76 pages
PDF
2 1999-09-24 PLAINTIFFS ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103250
71 pages
PDF
3 1999-08-13 DEFENDANTS JOINT OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103251
72 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 3 documents , 219 pages
Price: $ 29.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
MERGER
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
DIRECTORS
INDEPENDENCE
POULOS
DELAWARE
SHAREHOLDER
TRANSACTION
CONTROL
EVIDENCE
STANDSTILL PROVISION
DEL
BUSINESS
ROBERT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DISINTEREST
MANAGEMENT
AMERICAN GENERAL STOCK
BUCKWALTER
NEGOTIATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE PROCESS
EMPLOYMENT
WILMINGTON
LLP
PAST RELATIONSHIPS
ALLEGATION
                                                                                    I
:


         IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                     .


                        IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY



                                             >
      IN RE WESTERN NATIONAL                 )           CONSOLIDATED
      CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS )                            C.A. No. 15927
      LITIGATION                             )


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                              Date Submitted: March 14, 2000
                               Date Decided: May 22,200O


     Joseph A. Rosenthal and Norman M. Monhait, of ROSENTHAL,
     MONHAIT, GROSS &L GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; and
     Pamela S. Tikellis, of CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, Wilmington, Delaware;
     OF COUNSEL: Sandy A. Liebhard and Michael S. Egan, of BERNSTEIN
     LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP, New York, New York; Robert I. Harwood
     and Matthew M. Houston, of WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN &
     FEFFER LLP, New York, New York; and Michael Jaffe, of WOLF
     HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, New York, New
     York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

     Steven J. Rothschild and Kevin M. Maloy, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
     MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
     Defendants American General Corporation, Astro Corporation and Western
     National Corporation.

     Martin P. Tully, R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., and S. Mark Hurd, of MORRIS,
     NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
     the Individual Defendants.



     CHANDLER, Chancellor



                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
  • Steven J. Rothschild and Kevin M. Maloy, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP,
  • Did American General Exercke Actual Control Over Western National's Business and Afiirs?.
  • The Standstill Provision and Project Raven
  • Natiorlal 's Board of Directors?
  • Did the merger pose an economic
  • Was Poulos otherwise independent of American General?.
  • Do past relationships with American General vitiate
  • Buckwalter
  • Did American General Control the Special Committee
  • And Dictate the Terms of the Transaction?.
  • Was the Special Committee Process
  • National" or the "Company") and its 46 percent shareholder,
  • Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment.
  • Shareholder plaintiffs allege that because American General was the
  • of a controlling shareholder brings the special committee's recommendation
  • certain Western National directors' independence from American General
  • which was a product of arm's length negotiations
  • and CEO pursuant to a five-year employment contract.
  • American General management devoted considerable attention to several
  • new CEO, Robert M. Devlin, and Poulos discussed the
  • It is doubtful that this was a serious query, as the Special Committee members could have
  • shareholder received cash or American General stock worth approximately
  • Kahn v. Lynch Cornrnmications Sys., Inc., Del.
  • evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of fact.
  • at 5, Walsh, V.C. (stating that "conclusory allegation of fiduciary duty must be supported by
  • questions regarding director disinterest and independence in Aronson V.

  • 2 . PLAINTIFFS ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    DEPO
    POULOS
    DEL
    SHAREHOLDERS
    WESTERN NATIONAL BOARD
    EVIDENCE
    COURT
    DEVLIN
    HERMANCE DEPO
    SUPR
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    MERGER
    PRICE
    BAKER DEPO
    MATERIAL FACT
    TRANSACTION
    RICHARDS DEPO
    PLAINTIFFS
    FINANCIAL ADVISOR
    CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER
    NEGOTIATIONS
    DLJ
    PUBLIC SHAREHOLDERS
    MANAGEMENT
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    DAIRY MART
    SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
    LLP
    
                 IN THE COURT CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    IN RE WESTERN NATIONAL CORPORATION                :      CONSOLIDATED
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                  C.A. No. 15927NC
    
    
                  PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
                      DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
                                        ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,
                                         GROSS  & GODDESS, P.A.
                                        Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
                                        P.O. Box 1070
                                        Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                        (302) 656-4433
    
                                        CHIMICLES  & TIKELLIS
                                        One Rodney Square
                                        P.O. Box 1035
                                        Wilmington, DE 19899
                                        (302) 656-2500
    
                                        Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD
     & LIFSHITZ, LLP
    10 East 40* Street
    New York, New York 10016
    (212) 779-1414
    
    WECHSLER HARWOOD
     HALEBIAN  & FEFFER LLP
    48 8 Madison Avenue
    New York, NY 10024
    (212) 935-7400
    
    WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
    FREEMAN  & HERZ LLP
    270 Madison Avenue
    New York, New York 10016
    (212) 545-4600
    
    Dated: September 24, 1999
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
  • DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN & FEFFER LLP
  • THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT AMERICAN
  • GENERAL WAS A CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER OF WESTERN
  • Western National Board.
  • Dictated the Terms of the Transaction
  • THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF UNFAIR DEALING
  • Western National's Use Of The Special Committee Does Not Insulate
  • There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact as to Whether the Special
  • THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT $29.75 WAS AN UNFAIR PRICE 51
  • DLJ Failed To Conduct,
  • Comparable Merger And Acquisition Analysis
  • Supr., 650 A.2d 1270.
  • Aronson v. Lewis, Del.
  • Kahn v. Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc., Del.

  • 3 . DEFENDANTS JOINT OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MERGER
    DEP
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    SHAREHOLDERS
    PRICE
    JUDGEMENT
    DEL
    TRANSACTION
    DEFENDANTS
    DISINTERESTEDNESS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    STOCK
    DLJ
    DIRECTORS
    TAB
    POULOS DEP
    NEGOTIATIONS
    HERMANCE DEP
    PLAINTIFFS
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    STANDSTILL AGREEMENT
    RICHARDS DEP
    GORMLEY DEP
    MANAGEMENT
    UNDISPUTED FACTS
    CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER
    MARKET PRICE
    REPRESENTATIVES
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    
                                                                                       *A  !."`
                                                                                        ?i  id'
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                     / ,Yj :i
                                                                                      2: ,
    
                                IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
    
    
    IN RE WESTERN NATIONAL CORPORATION : CONSOLIDATED
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION C.A. No. 15927NC
    
    
    
    
    
                   DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                         THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
    
    
    
    
    SKADDEN,  ARPS, SLATE,                 MORRIS, NICHOLS,  ARSHT  & TUNNELL
    MEAGHER & FLOM LLP                     120 1 N. Market Street
    One Rodney Square                      P.O. Box 1347
    PO. Box 636                            Wilmington, DE 19899
    Wilmington,  IDE 19899                 (302) 658-9200
    (302) 64 I-3000
    
    Attorneys for Defendants               Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
    American General Corporation
    and Western National Corporation
    
    
    
    
    DATED: August 13, 1999
    
    
    
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                                       
    
    TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES . i
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • SPECT TO THE MERGER AND, THEREFORE, IS ENTITLED TO
  • MARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF LOYALTY CLAIMS
  • Arm'+Length By A Committee Of Disinterested And Indep e n d e n t D i r e c t o r s 28
  • BASED UPON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS, THE MERGER WAS E N T I R E L Y FAIRAS A M A T T E R O F L A
  • The Merger Price Was Entirely Fair to Western National's
  • Western National's Major Stockholders Voluntarily
  • DLJ Opined That The Merger Price Was Fair 42
  • Defendants Have Dealt Fairly With Western National's Other
  • PLAINTIFFS' THROWAWAY DISCLOSURE CLAIMS ARE E Q U A L L Y W I T H O U T M E R I T 60
  • Litig., Del.
  • Inc. Shareholders Litig., D e l.
  • National" or the "Company") went public in January of 1994, its board of directors faced
  • a standstill agreement between the two companies which
  • The Special Committee succeeded in negotiating a very favorable merger
  • transaction with American General, a large, diversified financial services
  • the price at which Western National's stock then was trading -- a price generally regarded
  • American General had not considered making an equity investment in Western National at the
  • leading management and the Board of Directors to consider strategic alternatives.
  • see also Proxy at 35 (Tab 13)) In light of Western
  • l-60; Richards Dep.
  • 73-74; see also Hermance Dep.
  • (Idat 6; Gormley Dep.
  • At this time, no discussions or negotiations regardin(r3 such a transaction were conducted,
  • that the Special Committee arrange for representatives of senior management of Western
  • National was fully valued at its then current market price of approximately $28 3/16.
  • ("shareholder who owns less than 50% of a corporation's outstanding stock, without some
  • fiduciary duty to offer a price that was intrinsically fair);
  •    |