Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co.

396 U.S. 375, 90 S. Ct. 616 (1970)

 

RULE:

Where there has been a finding of materiality, a shareholder has made a sufficient showing of causal relationship between the violation and the injury for which he seeks redress if he proves that the proxy solicitation itself, rather than the particular defect in the solicitation materials, is an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction. This objective test will avoid the impracticalities of determining how many votes were affected, and, by resolving doubts in favor of those the statute is designed to protect.

FACTS:

Petitioners, minority shareholders of respondent Electric Auto-Lite Co., brought this action derivatively and on behalf of minority shareholders as a class to set aside a merger of Auto-Lite and the Mergenthaler Linotype Co. (which before the merger owned over half of Auto-Lite's stock). Petitioners charged that the proxy solicitation for the merger by Auto-Lite's management was materially misleading and violated § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder in that the merger was recommended to Auto-Lite's shareholders by that company's directors without their disclosing that they were all nominees of and controlled by Mergenthaler. The District Court on petitioners' motion for summary judgment ruled that the claimed defect in the proxy statement was a material omission, and after a hearing concluded that without the votes of minority stockholders approval of the merger could not have been achieved and that a causal relationship had thus been shown between the finding of a § 14 (a) violation and the alleged injury to petitioners.

ISSUE:

Should the claimed defect in the proxy statement be considered a material omission?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The Court vacated judgment for petitioners and remanded the case, because the conflict of interest was a materially misleading aspect of the proxy solicitation. The Court held that where there was a finding of materiality, petitioners made a sufficient showing of causal relationship between the violation and injury to seek redress, so long as it was proven that the proxy solicitation itself, rather than the particular defect in the solicitation materials, was an essential link in accomplishment of the transaction.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.