Opinion ID: 408092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure Requirements

Text: 52 Next, the Missouri Act requires substantially more disclosure than the Williams Act, including such additional information as the commissioner may require as necessary in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Compare Mo.Rev.Stat. § 409.515 with 15 U.S.C. § 78n(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 240.24d-3 (1981), 14 and 15 U.S.C. § 78m(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 240.13d-1 (1981). 15 On appeal appellants argue that Missouri's more extensive disclosures are consistent with the Williams Act's goal of investor protection. 53 However, (d)isclosure of a mass of irrelevant data can confuse the investor and obscure relevant disclosures. Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d at 1280 (citations omitted). Accord, Dart Industries, Inc. v. Conrad, 462 F.Supp. 1, 13 (S.D.Ind.1978). Similarly, the Supreme Court warned in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 448, 96 S.Ct. 2126, 2131, 48 L.Ed.2d 757 (1976), that excessive disclosure requirements may accomplish more harm than good by confusing shareholders. Such a result conflicts with the Williams Act's goal of unfettered choice by well-informed investors. As noted by the House and Senate Reports on the Williams Act, (t)he bill is designed to make the relevant facts known so that shareholders have a fair opportunity to make their decision. H.R.Rep.No.1711, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1968); S.Rep.No.550, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1967) (emphasis added), reprinted in (1968) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News. 54 In § 13(d) of the Williams Act, Congress delegated to the SEC the task of specifying what data is material to aid an investor considering a tender offer. The SEC has attempted to write disclosure requirements that provide enough material information without producing reports so detailed and complicated that few shareholders would want to read them .... That judgment is a legislative one. Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d at 1280-81 (citations omitted). Missouri's attempt to second-guess that judgment cannot stand. See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. at 171, 83 S.Ct. at 1232.