もう一つ、買収防衛策絡みでの興味深い判断について、備忘録がわりに。
A Trial Against News Corp. Is Allowed to Go Forward (New York Times)
A Delaware judge has ruled that a trial against the News Corporation can proceed in a lawsuit filed by 13 institutional pension funds that accused the company of reneging on an agreement to let shareholders vote on a takeover defense.
Last year, the News Corporation promised shareholders that, in exchange for their approval of the company's move to Delaware from Australia, any poison pill adopted after the move would be allowed to expire in a year unless shareholders voted on an extension.・・・ Shortly thereafter, the Liberty Media Corporation increased its News Corporation stake to 17 percent, and the News Corporation adopted a poison pill.
Last month, the media and entertainment giant extended the pill for two more years "without a shareholder vote, in contravention of the board policy," court papers say.
The 13 investor plaintiffs, who manage $300 billion in pension funds in Australia, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands, sued the News Corporation on five charges ranging from breach of contract to fraud.
The News Corporation asked that the case be dismissed, saying board policy was not irrevocable and could therefore be changed.・・・ In a 26-page opinion released on Tuesday, he said, "If a board enters into a contract to adopt and keep in place a resolution (or a policy) that others justifiably rely upon to their detriment, that contract may be enforceable, without regard to whether resolutions (or policies) are typically revocable by the board at will."
But the judge also expressed reservations about why sophisticated investors, like the Dutch government's giant Stichting Pensioenfonds APB, had failed to negotiate "enforceable agreements to protect their interests."
ちょっと背景事情までは知らないのですが、要するに、取締役会が機関投資家との間で「今後、ライツ・プランを入れる場合には株主総会での承認がない限り1年間で期限が切れるようにする」という約束を交わしたのに、実際に買収の脅威が生じたら、取締役会が約束を破って2年間の有効期限を持つライツ・プランを導入したということのようです。
会社側は取締役会決議は基本的にいつでも撤回可能なものでなくてはいけないと主張して訴訟却下を求めたのですが、裁判所は取締役会の方針に関する契約でも履行可能な場合があるとして、discovery(証拠開示手続)の上でtrialに進むことを認めたようです。
デラウェア州会社法141条では取締役会の権限はかなり強く、付属定款(bylaws)でもこれを縛ることはできないとしているのですが、もし、今回のように契約でその権限が縛れるようになるとすると、取締役会と株主とのパワーバランスに大きな影響を及ぼす可能性があり、その意味で私の目には非常に重要な判決のように思えるのですが、どうでしょう?