LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GOLAINE v EDWARDS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 15,404, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: GOLAINE, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00015404, Duracell, Merger, Del, Complaint, Kkr, Advisory Fee, Directors, Payment, Duty, Gillette, Supr, Allegations, Breach, Shareholders, Stockholders, Allege, Injury, Merger Consideration, Esquire, Fees, Validity, Loyalty, Transaction, Fiduciary Duty, Special Injury, Negotiations, Transactions, Motion, Affiliates, Delaware, York, Duracell Board, Parnes, Target, Merger Agreement, Class Action, Individual Claim, Cognizable Claim, Business Judgment, Business Judgment Rule, Presumption , ContentID: 120239831

Case Documents
1 1999-12-21 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100477
26 pages
PDF
2 1999-06-04 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOIN MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103354
23 pages
PDF
3 1999-04-13 DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103355
40 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 3 documents , 89 pages
Price: $ 29.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GILLETTE
PLAINTIFF
MERGER
COURT
KKR
COMPLAINT
STOCKHOLDERS
ESQUIRE
FEES
TRANSACTIONS
DELAWARE
YORK
DURACELL BOARD
TARGET
DEL
MERGER CONSIDERATION
NEGOTIATIONS
INDIVIDUAL CLAIM
DEFENDANTS
DIRECTORS
EXCHANGE RATIO
COMPLAINT FAILS
ACQUISITION COSTS
FIDUCIARY DUTY
TOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
WILMINGTON
COUNSEL
ATTORNEYS
LEXIS
      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                      IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                   .,,.
                                                                            c:,: `.
                                                                            -. _..
                                                                           :. ,
ROSALYN GOLAINE                                                                                    
                                          >                                                       
                                          >                               --                  .
                   Plaintiff,             >                                 -,                - .*
                                                                         -:  I'.
                                                                         __,..
                                                                         -   ._ -`.
                                          >                              <:.:;-              ,_ *
                                                                         *. - .L:            .:
      V.                                                                 _.. . :
                                          >                              -I. : f--
                                          >    Civil Action No. 15404           "'  `.-
EARNEST J. EDWARDS, et al                 >

                   Defendants.            >

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

                           Date Submitted: December 16, 1999
                           Date Decided: December 21, 1999

Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, of ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  8z
GODDESS, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Scott W. Fisher, Esquire,
Adam Steinfeld, Esquire, of GARWIN, RANZAFT, GERSTEIN & FISHER, New
York, New York; Robert I. Harwood, Esquire, Jeffrey M. Haber, Esquire,
WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN & FEFFER, New York, New York;
Nadeem Naruqi, Esquire, of FARUQI  & FARUQI, New York, New York,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire, of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: John D. Donovan, Jr., Esquire, John P.
Bueker, Esquire,  Michele T.  Perillo, Esquire, of ROPES  & GRAY, Boston,
Massach.usetts, Attorneys for The Gillette Company.

Jesse A. Finkelstein, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON  & FINGER, Wilmington,
Delawarz; OF COUNSEL: Michael J. Chepiga, Esquire, of SIMPSON THACHER
& BARTLETT, New York, New York, Attorneys for Duracell International Inc., the
Duracell Directors and KKR Affiliates.

STRINE, Vice Chancellor



SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire, of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, Delaware; OF
  • Jesse A. Finkelstein, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, Wilmington, Delawarz; OF
  • plaintiff Rosalyn Golaine challenges the propriety of a
  • in connection with a merger between The Gillette Company and Duracell
  • Before the merger, KKR's affiliate KKR Associates, L.P.
  • KKR principals who served on the Duracell board of directors - defendants
  • The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Golaine's
  • the defendants assert that the complaint
  • merger price negotiations between KKR and Gillette were concluded.
  • Duracell stockholders is too insubstantial to buttress a direct attack on the
  • complaint fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or waste at all,
  • approlved the KKR fees.
  • the complaint fails to state an individual claim.
  • identified as a leading target.
  • merger consideration payable by Gillette.
  • It is fairly standard to confront transactions wherein the stockholders of one
  • Western PaciJic Industries, Inc., Del.
  • LEXIS 380 at *7,13erger, V.C..
  • transactions are part of an acquirer's total acquisition costs,
  • " Parries, 722 A.2d at 1245 (indicating that a plaintiff "may challenge the validity of the
  • in addition to the $68.365 dollars a share the Exchange Ratio implied.

  • 2 . PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOIN MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MERGER
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    DURACELL
    SUPR
    DIRECTORS
    PAYMENT
    COURT
    DUTY
    KKR
    GILLETTE
    VALIDITY
    LOYALTY
    MOTION
    PARNES
    SHAREHOLDERS
    CLASS ACTION
    COMPLAINT
    TRANSACTION
    STOCKHOLDERS
    WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN
    AFFILIATES
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    NEGOTIATIONS
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    ADVISORY FEE
    OPPOSITION
    FEFFER LLP
    MADISON AVENUE
    
                                                                  ?Ji`ti f$b jy
                                                                                    ~~~~~~ ;           
                                                                                                  `%
                     IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    ROSALYN GOLAINE,                                 1
                             Plaintiff,              I    C.A. No. 154-Q,4 NC
              V .                                    ;                  r-ry  :,':;  .r'
                                                                        5 .- : -',                     
    EARNEST J. EDWARDS, C. ROBERT                                       .,,.              !I 7         
                                                     ;                                      ;          
    KIDDER, CHARLES E. KIERNAN,                      )                  i,,' "I                        
    HENRY R. KRAVIS, G. WADE LEWIS,                                     - ,,;             J-c-
    ARNO A. PENZIAS, CHARLES R. PERRIN,              ;                  -! ../            -3           
                                                                                          - _.
    PAUL E. RAETHER, GEORGE R. ROBERTS,                                 _                 --           
                                                                        2                              
    PAULA STERN, SCOTT M. STUART,                                            1,:          .c-
                                                                        CR L:. --                      
    KOHLBERG KRAVIS ROBERTS & CO., L.P.,                                ,"\ i-T I 0                    
                                                     i                  --r,
                                                                                  c .)                 
    KKR ASSOCIATES, L.P., THE GILLETTE                                                    C'
                                                     )                            4
    COMPANY and DURACELL
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                             i
                             Defendants.
    
                              PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
                          TO DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
    
                                                Joseph A. Rosenthal
                                                Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross
                                                 & Goddess, P.A.
                                                Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
                                               P.O. Box 1070
                                               Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
                                                (302) 656-4433
    
    Of Counsel:                                Attorneys for Plaintiff
    WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN
      SC FEFFER LLP
    Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
    Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq.
    488 Madison Avenue, 8th Fl.
    New York, NY 10022
    (212) 935-7400
    GARWIN, BRONZAFT, GERSTEIN                  FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      & FISHER, L.L.P.                         Nadeem Naruqi, Esq.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • COMPANY and DURACELL
  • PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
  • TO DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
  • WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN SC FEFFER LLP
  • 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Fl.
  • CLASS ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS
  • THE VALIDITY OF THE MERGER WAS
  • DURACELL'S DIRECTORS HAVE VIOLATED THEIR
  • DUTY OF LOYALTY TO DURACELL'S PUBLIC
  • THE $20 MILLION PAYMENT COULD NOT HAVE
  • Del.
  • Supr., 542 A.2d,l182
  • At the time of the Merger, KKR and/or its affiliates owned 34% of Duracell's outstanding
  • each Duracell share was converted into .904 of a Gillette share.
  • Defendants have jointly moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12- The parties agreed to postpone
  • Gillette understood that without KKR's consent, there could be no transaction.
  • representatives on the Board of Duracell breached their fiduciary duties by exacting a
  • As a consequence of defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, $20 million was allocated to KKR
  • Board,* and a partner of KKR Associates) to initiate negotiations
  • They were not retained by Duracell and did not speak for Duracell or any of its shareholders,
  • On September 12, 1996, Gillette's Board of Directors met to vote on the merger agreement and
  • On a Rule 12motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must assume the truth
  • PLAINTIFF CAN MAINTAIN THIS ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS SUSTAINED A DIRECT
  • The complaint alleged that Goldberg had breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty by preferring

  • 3 . DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    ADVISORY FEE
    KKR
    DUTY
    COURT
    ALLEGATIONS
    DURACELL
    PAYMENT
    BREACH
    MERGER
    DIRECTORS
    ALLEGE
    INJURY
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DEL
    DEFENDANTS
    MERGER CONSIDERATION
    SPECIAL INJURY
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    STOCKHOLDERS
    TRANSACTION
    COGNIZABLE CLAIM
    AFFILIATES
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT
    BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    PRESUMPTION
    COMMON STOCK
    MAINTENANCE
    
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                  IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    
                                                   >
    ROSALYN GOLAINE,                               >
    
                            Plaintiff,             i>
           V.                                      >       C.A. No. 15404 NC
                                                   >
    EARNEST J. EDWARDS, et al
                                                   i
                            Defendants.            >
    
    
    
    
                               DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING BRIEF
                            IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
    
    
    
    RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER                            MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
    Jesse A. Finkelstein                                 Kenneth J. Nachbar
    One Rodney Square                                    1201 N. Market Street
    Wilmington, DE 19899                                 P.O. Box 1347
    (302) 658-6541                                       Wilmington, DE 19899-l 347
     Attorneys for Duracell International Inc.,          (302) 658-9200
     the Duracell Directors and KKR Affiliates            Attorneys for The Gillette Company
    
    
    OF COUNSEL:                                          OF COUNSEL:
    
    Michael J. Chepiga                                   John D. Donovan, Jr.
    Simpson Thacher & Bartlett                           Michele  T. Perillo
    425 Lexington Avenue                                 ROPES & GRAY
    New  `i'ork,  NY 10017-3954                          One International Place
    (212) 455-2000                                       Boston, MA 02110
                                                         (617) 951-7000
    
    
    April .13, 1999
    
    
    
                                                                                          1.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • DEFENDANTS' JOINT OPENING BRIEF
  • The Plaintiff Has Failed To Articulate The "Special Injury"
  • Because Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied The Procedural
  • Prerequisites to the Maintenance Of A Derivative Claim,
  • PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS, EVEN IF TAKEN AS TRUE,
  • PAYMENT OF AN ADVISORY FEE TO KKR BREACHED
  • The Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Of Breach Of The
  • Complaint Do Not Establish That A Majority Of The
  • Directors Had A Disabling Financial Interest In The
  • The Duty Of Good Faith Because She Has Presented No
  • Facts Tending To Rebut The Presumption Of Good Faith In
  • The Plaintiffs Recharacterization Of The Advisory Fee As
  • Additional Merger Consideration Is Unsupportable On the
  • IN THE ABSENCE OF A VIABLE CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ON THE PART OF THE DURACELL
  • Shareholders Litia.,
  • Kahn v. Roberts, Del.
  • whose affiliates held approximately 34% of Duracell's outstanding common stock
  • Pursuant to the Merger Agreement that the two boards authorized,
  • no negotiated transaction between Gillette and
  • The plaintiffs complaint does not allege -- or even hint -- that the merger
  • all shareholders represented the informed exercise of business judgment,
  • additional "merger consideration" that she contends was not shared by all Duracell
  • advances no cognizable claim for relief,
  • to have been designated to serve on Duracell's board by KKR or its affiliates.
  • breached their fiduciary duties to the Duracell stockholders by agreeing to the fee.
  • facts rebutting the presumption" of the business judgment rule);
  •    |