Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien

280 A.2d 717 (Del. 1971)



Under the business judgment rule, a court will not interfere with the judgment of a board of directors unless there is a showing of gross and palpable overreaching. A board of directors enjoys a presumption of sound business judgment, and its decisions will not be disturbed if they can be attributed to any rational business purpose. A court under such circumstances will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment.


Sinclair Venezuelan Oil Company (Sinven) is a subsidiary of Sinclair Oil Corporation (Sinclair). The plaintiff stockholders of Sinven brought a derivative action against Sinclair to account for damages sustained by its subsidiary, as a result of dividends paid by Sinven, the denial to Sinven of industrial development, and a breach of contract between Sinclair's wholly-owned subsidiary, Sinclair International Oil Company, and Sinven. The Court of Chancery granted an order to the plaintiffs.The Chancellor held that because of Sinclair's fiduciary duty and its control over Sinven, its relationship with Sinven must meet the test of intrinsic fairness. Sinclair appealed, arguing that the transactions between it and Sinven should be tested, not by the test of intrinsic fairness with the accompanying shift of the burden of proof, but by the business judgment rule under which a court will not interfere with the judgment of a board of directors unless there is a showing of gross and palpable overreaching. 


Was the intrinsic fairness test erroneously applied on the dividend payments?




The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the order. It must be determined whether the dividend payments by Sinven were, in essence, self-dealing by Sinclair. The dividends resulted in great sums of money being transferred from Sinven to Sinclair. However, a proportionate share of this money was received by the minority shareholders of Sinven. Sinclair received nothing from Sinven to the exclusion of its minority stockholders. As such, these dividends were not self-dealing. Thus, the Chancellor erred in applying the intrinsic fairness test as to these dividend payments. The business judgment standard should have been applied. Moreover, since there is no proof of self-dealing on the part of Sinclair, it follows that the expansion policy of Sinclair and the methods used to achieve the desired result must, as far as Sinclair's treatment of Sinven is concerned, be tested by the standards of the business judgment rule. Accordingly, Sinclair's decision, absent fraud or gross overreaching, to achieve expansion through the medium of its subsidiaries, other than Sinven, must be upheld.

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