Document: 443 U.S. 173 99 S.Ct. 2710 61 L.Ed.2d 464 David H. LEROY, Attorney General of Idaho, et al., Appellants,v.GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION. No. 78-759. Argued April 17, 1979. Decided June 26, Syllabus After publicly announcing its intent to make a tender offer purchase shares stock company having substantial assets in appellee, Texas-based corporation which is also engaged business New York and Maryland, filed the informational schedule with Securities Exchange Commission required by Act 1934 (1934 Act), as amended Williams Act, documents Idaho an attempt satisfy that State's takeover statute. When officials objected filing delayed effective date offer, appellee brought action Federal District Court for Northern Texas against responsible enforcing Idaho's law, seeking declaration state law was invalid insofar it purported apply interstate offers securities traded on national exchange. The held personal jurisdiction over defendants had been obtained under long-arm statute, venue could be sustained special provision § 27 giving federal district courts exclusive actions enforce "any liability or duty created" Act. court then went hold statute pre-empted placed impermissible burden commerce. Appeals affirmed, holding, inter alia, authorized because enforcement attempt, conflicting constituted violation "duty" imposed 28(a) (which provides nothing shall affect regulatory agency's any security person does not conflict proper 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) permits founded solely diversity citizenship where all reside "in claim arose") allegedly restraint occurred accordingly arose." Held: 1. There sound prudential justification this case reversing normal order considering advance venue, since otherwise would have decide constitutional question previously decided whether properly Pp. 180-181. 2. Venue improper no officials. 181-182. 3. Nor available 1391(b). forming basis appellee's took place, only one "the arose" within meaning 183-187. 577 F.2d 1256, reversed. Peter E. Heiser, Jr., Boise, appellants. Amy Juviler, City, State York, amicus curiae. Ivan Irwin, Dallas, Tex., appellee. Frank Easterbrook, Washington D. C., Commission, Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 An imposes restrictions certain purchasers corporations Idaho. questions presented appeal are agents may defend constitutionality and, if so, conflicts amendments 1934,1 Commerce Clause United States Constitution.2 2 Sunshine Mining Metal Co. (Sunshine) "target company" Corporate Takeover Act—a designed regulate takeovers connections State.3 Sunshine's principal silver mining operation Coeur d'Alene Its executive offices most located State. through subsidiary, Maryland. Stock Exchange, shareholders dispersed throughout country. App. 36. It corporation. Great Western Corp. v. Kidwell, 439 F.Supp. 420, 423-424. 3 (Great Western) "offeror" statute.4 owned Delaware headquarters corporate Denver, Colo. 131. In early 1977, public million premium price. Because consummation proposed cause own more than 5% outstanding shares, comply provisions arguably well similar 4 On March 21, announced Sunshine, representatives simultaneous steps implement offer. They Schedule 13D Washington, D.C., disclosing information consulted Maryland about compliance laws those States. And they Director Finance 5 25, Melvin Baptie, who Deputy Administrator Department Finance, sent telecopy letter objections Western's company's Dallas. stated pages SEC Form were missing, asked several additional items information, indicated hearing scheduled, nor other taken, until requested received. Juris. Statement A-156 A-164. same day, Tom McEldowney, entered delaying Id., at A-165 A-166. made response Baptie's McEldowney's order. 6 28, Texas, naming laws. complaint prayed cash 1-36. claims dismissed former did their latter expressly assert F.Supp., 428-429. two defendants—McEldowney, Wayne State5 —appeared specially contest later answer contesting merits claim. 7 found four separate statutory bases jurisdiction.6 service pursuant statute.7 concluded, however, general 1391(b),8 obviously arose rather Texas. Nonetheless, Act). 48 Stat. 902, amended, 15 78aa. See nn. 9 10, infra, accompanying text. 8 merits, places granted injunctive relief enabled acquire desired fall 1977. 434-440. That acquisition moot case, has violated will remain open unless Court's judgment finally affirmed. A divided panel Fifth Circuit subject-matter grounds relied upon n. 6, supra. advanced alternative theories support both determination conclusion lay First, noted assertion nonresidents fullest extent allowable Due Process Fourteenth Amendment. official seeks prevent from proceeding sufficient contacts jurisdiction. Second, Act,9 gives suits "to . based holding theory attempts, Act.10 reasoning Finally, disagreeing Court, concluded provision, 1391(b), there judicial 1265-1274. agreed analysis 1274-1287. 10 We probable appeal. 435 1065, 829, 59 30. Without reaching either arising out appellants, we now reverse lie 11 * jurisdiction, goes court's power exercise control parties, typically primarily matter choosing convenient forum. generally C. Wright, A. Miller, & Cooper, Practice Procedure 3801, pp. 5-6 (1976) (hereinafter Miller Cooper). hand, neither fundamentally preliminary sense is, privileges defendant, absolute strictures court, waived parties. Olberding Illinois Central R. Co., 346 338, 340, 74 83, 85, 98 L.Ed. 39; Neirbo Bethlehem Corp., 308 165, 167-168, 60 153, 154-155, 84 167. Accordingly, when doing conclude venue. 12 Such exists case. Although reasons discussed Part II, clear provide difficult. Indeed, Supreme construed authorizing non-residents permitted Constitution,11 resolution require heretofore decided. As our practice avoid unnecessary decision novel questions. find appropriate pretermit issue so Judicial Code. II 13 linchpin argument provided interpretation 9, reads imposing affirmative redressed 27. Frankfurter said "[t]his horse soon curried." Olberding, supra, U.S., S.Ct., 85. 14 reference "liabilit[ies] dut[ies] created chapter" clearly corresponds various explicitly establish duties participants market subject such persons possible Government, private litigants.12 Section provision. text legislative history suggest indicates might duty. section plainly intended protect, limit, authority.13 establishes unsupportable.14 III Nor, correctly first test provision—the residence defendants—obviously points reasoned, second relevant Dallas place "invalidly prevented initiating Sunshine." F.2d, 1273.15 buttressed noting single instituted treated arisen Ibid. 16 easiest fact raise justiciable save But answer. legal issues raised challenging statutes three different similar, convenience served consolidating trial district, authorize plaintiff rely justify choice 17 instances, purpose statutorily specified protect defendant risk select unfair inconvenient trial.16 For reason, Congress nondiversity cases. cf. 1391(e). desirability lead defendants, perhaps waive valid concern reading give right best his convenience. So long plain language severe type "venue gap" amendment plaintiffs proceed close,17 reason read broadly behalf plaintiffs.18 18 Moreover, bear Appeals' interpretation. allows deciding adopts occasionally fictive assumption arise district,19 absolutely intend party unfettered among host districts. Denver G. W. Railroad Trainmen, 387 556, 560, 87 1746, 1748, 954. Rather, restricted "a litigants"—i. e., them—"or witnesses testify case." S.Rep.No.1752, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1748. Brunette Machine Works Kockum Industries, 406 706, 710, 92 1936, 1939, 32 428. view, therefore, broadest even acceptable unusual specific district,20 choose between (or conceivably more) districts approximately equal plausibility—in terms availability witnesses, accessibility evidence, (but plaintiff)—may assigned locus Cf. Braden 30th Ky., 410 484, 493-494, 93 1123, 1128-1129, 35 443. 19 This not, unusual. involved obvious locus—the Most importantly, taken residents—the enactment legislature, review filing, forwarding comment entry postponing McEldowney—as future punish remedy bulk evidence witnesses—apart employees plaintiff, experts come States21 —is Less important, but nonetheless relevant, nature makes appropriate. depend judges sitting better qualified construe assess character elsewhere. cases cited 11, 20 therefore reject "claim initiate impact Western. Aside these "contacts" "claim" far short connecting District, note suit almost every prospective offeree—be he Los Angeles, Miami, elsewhere, Dallas—could argue force behalf) direct local broker accept frustrated desire law.22 above, inconsistent underlying leave entirely hands plaintiffs, making "primarily litigants witnesses." 1748.23 short, 21 22 ordered. 23 WHITE, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 24 up each Having complied governing believing extraterritorial application requirements declaratory statutes. I 1934, 78aa, disagree disposition reach contention 25 enacted form set which, like 1933, contains prescribes requirements—one relating attributes brought, suit. consider turn. 26 Comparison shows relative ease Whereas (a) defendant(s) reside, (b) arose," found, inhabitant, transacts business, act transaction constituting occurred." majority notes, some reluctant embrace view purposes widely accepted acts occur 27, indeed predicated need "material" part alleged Act.1 "Without question, grant potential liberal selection forum." Ritter Zuspan, 451 926, 928 (ED Mich.1978). Given policy confer wide variety task anomalous Faced left majority—of instituting attempting waiting defending State—Great forgo altogether, result keeping intention ultimately attempted important analogous total 36 States.2 With foregoing mind, occurred, appellants sought Of course, determining met, substantive allegations claim—that Act—must true. violate gist complained being occurs made. B determined relationship requirement met; chapter ., enjoin ." majority's term "duty means "explicitly" prescribed Ante, further restrict refer "participants market," ante, 181, presumably include 29 must market" encompasses by" Here respondent injunction applied ground then, officials, impliedly, enact legislation therewith. my affirmative. Supremacy Constitution prevails. command, very existence pre-empts invalidates efforts offers. Viewed perspective offerors, creates regulation. undertake regulation efforts. 30 exist absence less creation "[A]ll rest Clause," Swift Wickham, 382 111, 126, 86 258, 267, 194 (1965), statute—as Swift3 case—or another Constitution, Clause. Thus, command necessary authoritative counterpart duty, manner law. However, case—not Idaho's—is pre-emptive regulation.4 Just market, whole 31 Once contemplates "district wher[e] found," objection process, residents, see Fitzsimmons Barton, 589 330 (CA7 1979).5 82 454; §§ 78m(d), 78m(e), 78n(d)-78n(f). "The Power To foreign Nations, States, Indian Tribes U.S.Const., Art. I, 8. Chapter Title Code entitled "Corporate Takeovers." opening following definition: " 'Target company' issuer organized office state, whose equity class registered 14, title 30, Code, predecessor take-over securities." 30-1501(6) (Supp.1979) (emphasis added). 'Offeror' way participates includes affiliates associates person, acting jointly concert acquiring, disposing exercising voting rights attached 'Take-over offer' target company, request invitation tenders, after thereof offeror directly indirectly beneficial owner five per cent (5%) issuer." 30-1501(3), (5) (Supp.1979). wrote named defendant. Leroy replaced Kidwell bases: 1331 (general question), 1332 (diversity), 1337 (acts affecting commerce) [Securities 78aa]." 430. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann., 2031b (Vernon 1964). provides: "A civil wherein arose, except law." violations rules regulations thereunder, thereunder. Any criminal occurred. regulations, inhabitant process wherever found. 28(a), forth 78bb(a), pertinent part: "Nothing commission agency officer performing functions) thereunder." g., U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.1977). Appellants construction applicable commercial should govern sovereign endeavors. Both Appeals, extend limits re-examine state-law determinations kind. Butner 440 48, 57-58, 914, 919, 136; Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345-346, 96 2074, 2077-2078, 684 8; Propper Clark, 337 472, 486-487, 69 1333, 1341-1342, 1480. 14(a) 78n(a) ("It unlawful solicit proxy contravention prescribe ") added); 16(b), 78p(b) ("For preventing use [the] [of 10% security], director, issuer, profit realized him sale, sale purchase, (other exempted security) period six months, acquired good faith connection debt contracted, inure recoverable 17(a)(1), 78q(a)(1). ("Every exchange, member thereof, dealer medium member, association, dealer, municipal processor, transfer agent, clearing make, keep records reports rule, .") Thomas Corcoran, draftsman much leeway transactions allow them Hearings S.Res. (72d Cong.), 56, 97 (73d Cong.) before Senate Committee Banking Currency, 73d 1st Sess., 6577 (1934). particular, blue-sky pre-emption. ibid. considers straightforward difficult regard White's ingenuous intricate realistic reflection actual legislators provisions. breadth post, 188-189, citing Mich.1978), assuming section, narrower applies whenever involves Radzanower Touche Ross 148, 1989, 540. 1391 depends J. Moore, ¶ 0.142[5.-2], 1429-1430 (1979); 3803, 10-13. 443; 954; Nierbo 168, 154, 167; Reuben Donnelley FTC, 580 264, 269 1978). 8, indicates, close gaps" existed earlier versions situations joint tortfeasors, multiple contributed injurious act, sued resided 710 1939. contrast, join claims—each statute—against sets simply contemplate plaintiffs. unambiguous; vague principles interest overriding policy, given 'liberal' construction." 39. sides supporting each, supra n.15, 1426-1435; Cooper 3806, 28-34. ALI, Study Division Jurisdiction Between Courts, Commentary 136-137 (1969). At witness roster, addition mainly included area California, Wisconsin. 100-292. 49 Columbia Puerto Rico. drafters unincorporated associations association resided. do noted, unrestrained venues "patently unfair" controlling here. Puma Marriott, 294 1116, 1120 (Del.1969); Prettner Aston, 339 273 (Del.1972); Mayer Development America, 396 917, 928-930 (Del.1975). Black Nova-Tech, Inc., 333 468 (Or.1971). Note, Law Constitution: Tender Offer Statutes Reconsidered, 88 Yale L.J. 510, 514-515, (1979). pre-emption Swift, appellants—poultry packing companies "enforcement statute's labeling requirements] [a statute]." 114, 260. Similarly, welfare practices challenged Social Security see, e. Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 675, 94 1347, 1361, 39 662 (1974); Hagans Lavine, 528, 1372, King Smith, 392 309, 312 3, 2128, 2130, 1118 (1968). appellants' 78bb(a). 1271-1272 (CA5 without 28(a). pre-emption, shed light scope "under challenge laws." 4. Piper Chris-Craft 430 1, 47 33, 952, 51 124 (1977), "whether proposition favor offeror" antifraud Redington, 442 577, 2479, 2490, (1979), rejecting notion implied action. 42 1983, 3-4, 13, alleges deprivation secured I-B text, states "and laws" 1983.

Category: 8