Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. United Technologies Corp.

435 F. Supp. 1249, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14972
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 15, 1977
DocketCiv. A. C77-124A
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 435 F. Supp. 1249 (Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. United Technologies Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 435 F. Supp. 1249, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14972 (N.D. Ohio 1977).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CONTIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff The Babcock & Wilcox Company (hereinafter B&W) initiated this action on April 4,1977, seeking to permanently enjoin the proposed tender offer of defendant United Technologies Corporation (hereinafter U.T.) for the outstanding common stock of B&W. In light of the urgency of this matter to the parties, the Court has endeavored to hear and resolve the issues presented as expeditiously as practicable. The following shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Babcock and Wilcox Company is a publicly held corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Its corporate headquarters are located in New York, New York, but it has substantial facilities within northeast Ohio.

B&W is a manufacturer of four broad classes of products: steam generating and associated equipment, including fossil steam boilers and nuclear steam systems, for utility, marine, and industrial applications; automated machines and machine tools; refractory products; and tubular products. The industries served by these B&W products, exclusive of electric utilities and the U. S. Government, include the following: machine; chemical and petroleum; transportation; metal and metal products; and pulp and paper.

United Technologies Corporation is a publicly held Delaware corporation. Its principal executive offices are in Hartford, Connecticut, although it has facilities located in 23 states. U.T. is engaged in the design, development, and manufacture of products within three rather clearly defined spheres or lines of business: power, systems, and industrial. Products within its power line include aircraft jet engines, gas turbines, solid propellant rocket boosters and motors, and rocket engines. Examples of its systems products are automotive systems and controls, helicopters, flight systems, and space equipment. Finally, U.T.’s industrial line of business is typified by products such as elevators and escalators, and wire, cable, and electrical circuit systems and control devices for the transmission and control of electrical energy. These high technology products are utilized in the aerospace, automotive, electrical communications, construction, and other industries.-

In late February 1977, U.T., after an extensive study of B&W with a view toward acquisition, initially contacted B&W ostensibly to discuss research and development concepts. During the ensuing series of conversations between top level management of the respective corporations, U.T. proposed a merger, pointing to the advantages and benefits to be derived from such a combination. It was U.T.’s hope that a friendly merger could and would be effected.

Thereupon, B&W’s senior officials engaged in internal discussions concerning *1254 U.T.’s proposal and undertook a review thereof. As a result, B&W’s management informed U.T. that the enthusiasm for the proposed merger was not shared, and that it envisioned possible antitrust and other legal problems. Despite B&W’s apparent lack of interest in the combination, U.T. nonetheless decided to pursue the matter.

Subsequently on March 28, 1977, U.T. transmitted to B&W documents containing the proposed tender offer for B&W’s common stock and a suggested press release. The following morning in a conversation between top executives of the two companies, B&W privately responded negatively to the proposal.

On the afternoon of March 29, 1977, U.T. publicly announced that it proposed to offer to purchase all the outstanding common stock of B&W at a price of $42 per share, which represented a 20% premium over the previous day’s closing market price. Such proposed tender offer, if made, obligates U.T. to purchase all shares tendered by B&W shareholders within a specified period of time. U.T.’s obligation to purchase is, however, subject to its retained right to terminate the offer upon the occurrence of certain contingencies delineated in the offer itself. It is further contemplated that at such time as the offer is made, an Offer to Purchase meeting the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission with regard to full disclosure of material information will be made available to all B&W shareholders.

By letter dated March 29, 1977, B&W expressed its intention to further study the proposal, and its opinion that to act without so doing in light of the magnitude of the undertaking would clearly be improper. Following this letter, there was an exchange of correspondence between U.T. and B&W relative to the proposal and their respective positions. Further, on March 31, 1977, B&W itself issued a press release stating that its Board of Directors, in considering U.T.’s proposal, deemed it advisable to secure additional information on the adequacy of the offer, and on what it viewed as serious legal problems attendant thereto.

After additional correspondence in which U.T. again suggested discussions between the two and B&W rejected the proposed offer, B&W sent a letter dated April 4,1977 to its shareholders. In that letter, B&W stated that it had rejected U.T.’s proposal to acquire B&W, and that it had filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction to block U.T.’s alleged illegal attempt to gain control of B&W. 1 The lawsuit referred to therein is the instant action.

II. PLEADINGS

Plaintiff’s complaint herein was filed as stated above on April 4, 1977 requesting equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15,22, and 15/26" style="color:var(--green);border-bottom:1px solid var(--green-border)">26; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2234, 2239, and 2273; 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1337.

The complaint sets forth twelve claims for relief. Essentially it alleges violations of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. §

Related

United States v. Cinergy Corp.
623 F.3d 455 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. Limited, Inc.
587 F. Supp. 246 (C.D. California, 1984)
Jordan v. City of Chicago, Dept. of Police
505 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Illinois, 1980)
United States v. Best
476 F. Supp. 34 (D. Colorado, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
435 F. Supp. 1249, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-wilcox-co-v-united-technologies-corp-ohnd-1977.