## Facts

- United States Sugar Corporation was controlled by a family group holding about 72% of the voting power, and the board lacked independent directors.
- The controller sought liquidity while retaining control, and the company approved a recapitalization featuring (1) a large issuer self-tender and (2) a newly created, heavily leveraged ESOP purchasing a substantial block of shares.
- The tender price was set at $68 per share, influenced by the directors’ view of the company’s and ESOP’s borrowing capacity rather than by an effort to maximize price for selling stockholders.
- Financial advisors produced valuation work with indications above the tender price (including figures reaching the high $70s per share), but the tender materials did not clearly disclose the substance and range of those analyses.
- The company’s principal asset was significant land holdings; the tender materials omitted key information about land book value and did not adequately relate asset values and valuation ranges to the $68 price.
- More than 93% of outstanding shares were tendered.
- Minority stockholders sued in a class action after the transaction, alleging misleading/incomplete disclosure, conflicted fiduciary conduct, and an offer structure that pressured tendering; they sought damages based on an asserted fair value far above $68.

## Issues

1. Whether directors of a controlled Delaware corporation breached fiduciary duties by soliciting a self-tender while omitting or obscuring material valuation and asset information needed for an informed stockholder decision.
2. Whether the self-tender and ESOP recapitalization was inequitably coercive because the structure and circumstances pressured minority stockholders to tender.
3. What remedy is appropriate for any fiduciary breach, including whether damages should be measured by the difference between the tender price and an asserted higher “true value.”

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery held that directors soliciting stockholder action in a self-tender must provide complete, accurate disclosure of all material facts, with heightened scrutiny where a controller effectively stands on both sides.
- The court found that the tender materials failed to disclose material valuation-related information, including significant aspects of banker analyses and important asset-value information, and that the presentation of information could not be misleading by concealment or burying.
- The court treated the challenged transaction as involving disclosure failures and coercive characteristics rather than adopting plaintiffs’ requested, valuation-based damages measure.
- The court granted limited relief tied to the disclosure/coercion violations rather than awarding damages based on the plaintiffs’ asserted per-share value.

## Legal Principles

- When directors seek stockholder action, they owe a fiduciary duty of candor requiring full and fair disclosure of all material information; this obligation applies with particular force in issuer self-tenders.
- In a controlled-company self-tender, material facts commonly include valuation ranges and key inputs from financial advisors, significant asset values, conflicts, and structural features affecting the tender decision.
- Adequate disclosure concerns both substance and presentation; material information may not be obscured through placement or framing that is not reasonably understandable to the average stockholder.
- A transaction may be inequitably coercive even if nominally voluntary when the controller’s position, leverage, and deal structure combine with informational advantages to pressure minority stockholders into tendering.
- Reliance on a fairness opinion does not by itself satisfy fiduciary duties where the process is conflicted or the essential financial analyses are not fairly communicated to stockholders.

## Conclusion

The decision required stringent, non-misleading disclosure in a controlled-company self-tender and recognized that a controller-driven recapitalization can be wrongful when its structure and disclosures pressure minority stockholders to tender, while limiting relief to the proven disclosure/coercion harms rather than adopting a sweeping valuation-based damages award.


Kahn v. United States Sugar Corp., 1985 WL 4449 (Del. Ch. Dec. 10, 1985)