Court Opinion

ID: 9426732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:47.741205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:02.727275
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring in part.
For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Blackmun in his dissenting opinion in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, *481421 U. S. 723, 761,1 and those stated in my dissent in Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, ante, p. 53, I believe both of those cases were incorrectly decided. I foresee some danger that Part IV of the Court's opinion in this case may incorrectly be read as extending the holdings of those cases. Moreover, the entire discussion in Part IV is unnecessary to the decision of this case. Accordingly, I join only Parts I, II, and III of the Court’s opinion. I would also add further emphasis to the fact that the controlling stockholders in this case did not breach any duty owed to the minority shareholders because (a) there was complete disclosure of the relevant facts, and (b) the minority are entitled to receive the fair value of their shares.2 The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute “fraud” within the meaning of Rule 10b-5.

 See also Eason v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 490 F. 2d 654 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 960.

 The motivation for the merger is a matter of indifference to the minority stockholders because they retain no interest in the corporation after the merger is consummated.