FMC Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 27




                                       - 27 -                                         
               plan."  In seeking to recover the additional amounts                   
               paid to its shareholders, FMC overlooks one important                  
               circumstance: because the excess amounts inured to the                 
               benefit of FMC's shareholders, FMC cannot claim that it                
               was injured thereby.                                                   
                    FMC's restructuring involved, on the one hand, a                  
               pro rata distribution of corporate assets to the public                
               shareholders in return for their surrender of a portion                
               of the publicly held equity.  The management                           
               shareholders, in contrast, would maintain their current                
               equity holdings with "the result being, of course, that                
               management would end up with a larger proportionate                    
               share of the reduced total equity investment in FMC."                  
               FMC, 825 F. Supp. at 633.  Aside from the purpose of                   
               discouraging takeover bidders by simultaneously                        
               increasing the percentage of shares held by management                 
               and FMC's debt-to-equity ratio, the economic effect of                 
               the transaction essentially was a wash--a zero sum                     
               transaction in which there were no special preferences                 
               afforded or profits to be made.  By design every                       
               shareholder was supposed to receive identical                          
               consideration for each share given up in an amount                     
               equal to the value of each share.  [Id. at 260-261.]                   
               The court did note initially that FMC cannot claim injury              
          because the additional cash payment inured to the benefit of its            
          shareholders.  Id. at 261.  This was the basis for the District             
          Court's dismissal of FMC's securities law claims.  FMC Corp. v.             
          Boesky, 727 F. Supp. at 1190.  However, the Court of Appeals for            
          the Second Circuit's decision did not rest, as alleged by                   
          petitioner, on a legal theory of equivalence between a                      
          corporation and its shareholders.  The court explained:                     
               FMC's duty was to provide FMC public shareholders with                 
               consideration equal in value to that received by the                   
               management shareholders, and to disclose fully all                     
               information relevant to the public shareholders'                       
               evaluation of the deal.  As Judge Pollack put it, FMC                  
               had no legitimate interest "in short-changing the                      






Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011