Court Opinion

ID: 9475994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:45:10.619842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:04.668793
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Both the majority opinion and the dissent argue lucidly and cogently (and ingeniously) their respective points of view. The case is not easy, but I think Judge Easter-brook’s remand for trial the more defensible disposition under all the circumstances. Certainly, I agree that under Michaels v. Michaels, 767 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir.1985), the price-and-strueture rule should not apply here in the case of a closely held company. I write separately only to note my position with respect to the rule.
As my separate opinion in Flamm v. Eberstadt, 814 F.2d 1169, 1181 (7th Cir. 1987), makes clear, I have not yet joined in an opinion adopting the price-and-structure rule of disclosure for publicly held companies. Neither have I taken a position opposing the rule. I have merely felt that neither this case nor Flamm (where the parties did not argue the issue) is an appropriate vehicle for coming to grips with the application of the rule to mergers of public companies. For various reasons, the apparently strong opposition of the Securities and Exchange Commission to adoption of *444the price-and-structure rule has not been seriously weighed. See Flamm, at 1182 n. 2. While, as indicated, reserving personal judgment on the price-and-structure rule as applied to public companies, I otherwise join fully in the majority opinion.