Knowledge

Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.

Source đź“ť

28: 158:. However, QVC intervened with its own, facially more generous merger proposal, conditioned on cancellation of the defensive measures. The Paramount board refused to conduct a formal bidding process with QVC on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with its contractual obligations to Viacom. 212:
The courts will look into the adequacy of the directors’ decision making process, including what information they used in coming to their decision. In addition, the court will consider the reasonableness of the directors’ action in light of the circumstances then
191:
When a corporation undertakes a transaction which will cause (a) a change in corporate control, or (b) a break-up of the corporate entity, the directors' obligation is to seek the best value reasonably available to the
56:, Martin S. Davis, Grace J. Fippinger, Irving R. Fischer, Benjamin L. Hooks, Franz J. Lutolf, James A. Pattson, Irwin Schloss, Samuel J. Silberman, Lawrence M. Small, and George Weissman v. 122: 165:
The sale of control in this case, which is at the heart of the proposed strategic alliance, implicates enhanced judicial scrutiny of the conduct of the Paramount Board under
295: 238: 305: 231: 150:; as part of the merger agreement, Paramount agreed to an array of defensive measures, including a no-shop provision, $ 100 million 300: 259: 320: 315: 310: 38: 277: 81: 135: 143: 53: 27: 224: 101: 120:, 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994), the Delaware Supreme Court clarified the type of transaction that triggers 268: 202:
The "directors have the burden of proving that they were adequately informed and acted reasonably."
147: 105: 97: 151: 289: 49: 325: 155: 139: 78: 60:(In re Paramount Communications Inc. Shareholders' Litigation) 57: 154:
and a lock-up option on approximately 20% of Paramount’s
173:
Del.Supr., 506 A.2d 173 (1986). (The "Revlon" decision.)
171:
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.,
253:
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.
117:
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.
93: 88: 73: 65: 44: 34: 21:
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.
20: 163: 8: 255:, 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994) is available from: 134:This case, an appeal from a decision of the 208:Key features of the enhanced scrutiny test 17: 239:United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 232:Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 169:Del. Supr., 493 A.2d 946 (1985), and 7: 167:Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 14: 296:United States corporate case law 26: 306:1994 in United States case law 50:Paramount Communications, Inc. 1: 342: 39:Supreme Court of Delaware 25: 148:Paramount Communications 301:Delaware state case law 136:Delaware Chancery Court 175: 161:The court found that, 138:, involved a proposed 225:Buchwald v. Paramount 102:Andrew G. T. Moore II 321:Paramount Pictures 112: 111: 100:, Chief Justice, 333: 316:Paramount Global 311:1994 in Delaware 282: 276: 273: 267: 264: 258: 106:Randy J. Holland 98:E. Norman Veasey 89:Court membership 69:February 4, 1994 58:QVC Network Inc. 30: 18: 341: 340: 336: 335: 334: 332: 331: 330: 286: 285: 280: 274: 271: 265: 262: 256: 248: 220: 198:Burden of proof 180: 152:termination fee 132: 12: 11: 5: 339: 337: 329: 328: 323: 318: 313: 308: 303: 298: 288: 287: 284: 283: 269:Google Scholar 247: 246:External links 244: 243: 242: 235: 228: 219: 216: 215: 214: 210: 204: 203: 200: 194: 193: 189: 179: 176: 131: 128: 110: 109: 95: 94:Judges sitting 91: 90: 86: 85: 75: 71: 70: 67: 63: 62: 46: 45:Full case name 42: 41: 36: 32: 31: 23: 22: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 338: 327: 324: 322: 319: 317: 314: 312: 309: 307: 304: 302: 299: 297: 294: 293: 291: 279: 270: 261: 260:CourtListener 254: 250: 249: 245: 241: 240: 236: 234: 233: 229: 227: 226: 222: 221: 217: 211: 209: 206: 205: 201: 199: 196: 195: 190: 188: 186: 182: 181: 177: 174: 172: 168: 162: 159: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 129: 127: 125: 124: 119: 118: 107: 103: 99: 96: 92: 87: 83: 80: 76: 72: 68: 64: 61: 59: 55: 51: 47: 43: 40: 37: 33: 29: 24: 19: 16: 252: 237: 230: 223: 207: 197: 192:stockholders 184: 183: 170: 166: 164: 160: 156:common stock 133: 121: 116: 115: 113: 48: 15: 84:(Del. 1994) 54:Viacom Inc. 290:Categories 108:, Justices 213:existing. 251:Text of 218:See also 187:triggers 142:between 126:duties. 74:Citation 178:Holding 66:Decided 281:  278:Justia 275:  272:  266:  263:  257:  185:Revlon 144:Viacom 140:merger 123:Revlon 104:& 130:Facts 35:Court 146:and 79:A.2d 77:637 326:QVC 114:In 292:: 82:34 52:,

Index


Supreme Court of Delaware
Paramount Communications, Inc.
Viacom Inc.
QVC Network Inc.
A.2d
34
E. Norman Veasey
Andrew G. T. Moore II
Randy J. Holland
Revlon
Delaware Chancery Court
merger
Viacom
Paramount Communications
termination fee
common stock
Buchwald v. Paramount
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
CourtListener
Google Scholar
Justia
Categories
United States corporate case law
Delaware state case law
1994 in United States case law
1994 in Delaware
Paramount Global
Paramount Pictures

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑