Shells minority shareholders sued in the court of chancery


In early 1984, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Royal Dutch), through various subsidiaries, controlled approximately 70 percent of the outstanding common shares of Shell Oil Co. (Shell).

On January 24, 1984, Royal Dutch announced its intention to merge Shell into SPNV Holdings, Inc. (Holdings), which is now Shell Petroleum, Inc., by offering the minority shareholders $55 per share. Shell's board of directors, however, rejected the offer as inadequate. Royal Dutch then withdrew the merger proposal and initiated a tender offer at $58 per share.

As a result of the tender offer, Holdings' ownership interest increased to 94.6 percent of Shell's outstanding stock. Holdings then initiated a short-form merger. Under the terms of the merger, Shell's minority stockholders were to receive $58 per share. However, if before July 1, 1985, a shareholder waived his right to seek an appraisal, he would receive an extra $2 per share. In conjunction with the short-form merger, Holdings distributed several documents to the minority, including a document entitled ‘‘Certain Information About Shell'' (CIAS).

The CIAS included a table of discounted future net cash flows (DCF) for Shell's oil and gas reserves. However, due to a computer programming error, the DCF failed to account for the cash flows from approximately 295 million barrel equivalents of U.S. proved oil and gas reserves. Shell's failure to include the reserves in its calculations resulted in an understatement of its DCF of approximately $993 million to $1.1 billion or $3.00 to $3.45 per share.

Moreover, as a result of the error, Shell stated in the CIAS that there had been a slight decline in the value of its oil and gas reserves from 1984 to 1985.

When properly calculated, the value of the reserves had actually increased over that time period. Shell's minority shareholders sued in the Court of Chancery, asserting that the error in the DCF along with other alleged disclosure violations constituted a breach of Holdings' fiduciary ‘‘duty of candor.'' Was the error in the DCF material and misleading?

Request for Solution File

Ask an Expert for Answer!!
Business Law and Ethics: Shells minority shareholders sued in the court of chancery
Reference No:- TGS02186406

Expected delivery within 24 Hours