Title: Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corporation et al. and Neff et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LINDA PARNES,
§
§
No. 123, 2001
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Court of 
§
Chancery of the State
BALLY ENTERTAINMENT 
§
of Delaware in and for
CORPORATION, HILTON HOTELS
§
New Castle County
CORPORATION, BARRIE K. BRUNET, §
C.A. No. 15192
J. KENNETH LOOLOIAN , JAMES M.
§
ROCHFORD, GEORGE N. ARONOFF,
§
PATRICK L. O’MALLEY, ROCCO J.
§
MARANO, EDWIN M. HALKYARD;
§
§
and
§
§
RICHARD B. NEFF, LEE HILLMAN
§
AND MICHAEL S. GOLDBERG, 
§
EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF 
§
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG,
§
§
Defendants Below,
§
Appellees.
§
Submitted: November 14, 2001
Decided: December 19, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of December, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1Levitt v. Bouvier, Del. Supr., 287 A.2d 671 (1972).
2
1)  Linda Parnes, a former stockholder of Bally Entertainment Corporation,
brought this action challenging the 1996 merger between Bally and Hilton Hotels
Corporation.  She alleged that Arthur M. Goldberg, Bally’s Chairman, President and
CEO, breached his fiduciary duties by demanding excessive personal payments at
the expense of the other Bally stockholders and by misrepresenting material facts
relating to the merger.  Parnes claimed that the remaining Bally directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the merger, and that Hilton knowingly aided and
abetted in the wrongdoing.
2)  After trial, the Court of Chancery found that the evidence did not support
Parnes’ claims.  To the contrary, the trial court found that both the process by which
the merger was negotiated and the merger price were entirely fair.  We have
carefully reviewed the record and, although we do not necessarily agree with all of
the trial court’s factual findings, we are satisfied that the record supports the
conclusion that (i) Goldberg did not act improperly in the merger negotiations or in
agreeing to acquire certain assets; (ii) the Bally board was fully informed and acted
with due care; and (iii) the merger was entirely fair.1 
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of
Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice