Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co: A Case Study in Corporate Law

Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. was a landmark corporate law case that made its way to the Supreme Court in 1985. This case study is a fascinating look at the complexities of corporate law.

Mesa Petroleum Co., led by T. Boone Pickens, was attempting to take over Unocal Corp. through a hostile takeover bid. Unocal's board of directors, however, was not keen on the idea and took steps to protect the company from Mesa's advances.

The case centered around Unocal's use of defensive tactics to prevent Mesa from acquiring the company. Unocal's board implemented a poison pill, which made it more difficult for Mesa to acquire a majority of Unocal's shares. This move was seen as a desperate attempt to thwart Mesa's takeover bid.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Unocal's favor, allowing the company to use defensive tactics to protect itself from the hostile takeover.

See what others are reading: Supreme Petrochem

Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. was a hostile takeover battle between two companies. Mesa Petroleum initiated a two-tier tender offer to acquire a significant portion of Unocal's shares.

Mesa's offer involved a front-loaded cash payment of $54 per share, with a back-end merger financed by junk bonds. This coercive offer was designed to pressure Unocal's shareholders into tendering their shares.

Unocal's board of directors determined that Mesa's offer was inadequate and potentially harmful, so they proposed a selective self-tender offer for Unocal's shares at $72, excluding Mesa.

Mesa Petroleum made a hostile bid for Unocal Corporation with a front-end loaded two-tiered offer, consisting of $54 in cash and $54 in junk bonds.

The back-end of the deal was financed by junk bonds, which were considered risky debt instruments.

Unocal's board consulted and analyzed Mesa's offer, determining it was inadequate and potentially harmful to shareholders.

Mesa held approximately 13% of Unocal's stock and initiated a hostile two-tier tender offer to acquire an additional 37% of Unocal's shares at $54 per share.

Unocal's board proposed a selective self-tender offer for its shares at $72, excluding Mesa, to protect shareholders from the coercive offer.

Readers also liked: Cover Corp Shareholders

The self-tender offer would be triggered upon Mesa acquiring sixty-four million shares of Unocal, which would mean Unocal itself would buy-back 49% of the outstanding shares.

The Court of Chancery initially granted a preliminary injunction against Unocal's selective offer, finding it legally impermissible.

Unocal's board attempted to launch a self-tender offer to combat Mesa's unsolicited tender offer.

The Delaware Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Chancery Court's ruling and vacated the preliminary injunction.

If this caught your attention, see: Perfect Tender Rule

The main issue in this case was whether Unocal's board had the power and duty to oppose Mesa's tender offer. This was a crucial question that needed to be answered in order to move forward with the case.

The board's selective self-tender offer was at the center of the controversy, with many questioning whether it was a valid exercise of business judgment under Delaware law.

The trial court initially found that Unocal's selective exchange offer was not legally permissible, and issued a preliminary injunction against the use of the self-tender offer defense.

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Unocal's board of directors had reasonable grounds for believing a danger to corporate policy or effectiveness existed, and that their response was reasonable in relation to the threat posed.

The court established a two-pronged test to determine whether directors may try to prevent a takeover: did the directors reasonably perceive a threat, and was the directors' defensive measure reasonable in relation to the threat posed?

This test allowed for an analysis of the price, nature, and timing of the offer, as well as the impact on various constituencies, including shareholders, creditors, customers, employees, and the community.

Here are the key elements of the Unocal test:

Note that this permission to consider other constituencies besides shareholders was curtailed in Revlon v. MacAndrews.

The Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. case highlights the importance of a board's decision-making process when it comes to takeover defenses. This is because the court feared that a board may use takeover defenses to impermissibly prevent threats to corporate policy or to the board's control over the corporation.

The court ruled that the board must demonstrate it was responding to a legitimate threat to corporate policy and effectiveness. This means the board's actions should be reasonable in relation to the threat posed.

The court's premise is rooted in the inherent conflict of interest involved in takeover defenses, which poses a significant danger to shareholders. This conflict of interest can lead to a board prioritizing its own control over the corporation's welfare.

To ensure the board's decisions are in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders, an "enhanced duty" was established. This duty requires the board to demonstrate its actions are meant to further the welfare of the corporation and its shareholders.

The court's ruling emphasizes the need for a board to be transparent and accountable in its decision-making process. This includes demonstrating a legitimate threat to corporate policy and effectiveness.

Intriguing read: Odoo Scheduled Actions

The Court of Chancery played a significant role in the Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. case. The trial court ultimately decided against Mesa Petroleum's selective exchange offer.

The court's decision was influenced by several key cases, including Cheff v. Mathes (1964) and Moran v. Household International, Inc. (1985). These cases set important precedents for corporate law.

In Cheff v. Mathes, the court established that minority shareholders have certain rights and protections under the law. This ruling had implications for the Unocal Corp. case.

Mesa Petroleum's actions were also compared to those in Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (1986), where the court found that a company's directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders.

The trial court's decision was not the only significant event in the case. A preliminary injunction was issued against Mesa Petroleum's use of the self-tender offer defense.

Here are some key cases that influenced the Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. decision: