Data Probe Acquisition Corporation v. Datalab, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983 · Corporations

722 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1983)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsTender offersFederal securities lawDisclosureWilliams ActSection 14(e)Rule 14e-2manipulative acts

Facts

Datatab, facing financial deterioration, agreed to merge with CRC at $1.00 per share, and its proxy materials disclosed that CRC would give employment contracts to three Datatab directors. Two days before the shareholder vote, Data Probe made a competing tender offer at $1.25 per share, contingent on failure of the CRC merger. Datatab and CRC then revised their deal to $1.40 per share and Datatab granted CRC an irrevocable one-year option to buy enough authorized but unissued shares to guarantee CRC two-thirds voting control and thus assure the merger. Datatab's July 1 letter recommended that shareholders not tender to Data Probe's $1.25 offer, disclosed the option, but did not explicitly state that management preferred CRC because of employment guarantees or expressly connect the option to the end of the control contest.

Issue

Does Section 14(e) prohibit a state-law-valid stock option granted by a target company during a tender offer contest when the option effectively defeats a competing tender offer? Did Datatab's July 1 shareholder letter violate Section 14(e) or Rule 14e-2 by omitting management's subjective preference for employment guarantees and by not explicitly stating the option's practical effect on control?

Rule

Section 14(e)'s prohibition on manipulative acts does not reach mere corporate mismanagement or breaches of fiduciary duty; it applies only to fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative conduct, and misrepresentation is an essential element of a Section 14(e) claim. Rule 14e-2 requires disclosure of material objective factual matters sufficient to inform shareholders, and where management's personal stake is fully disclosed, the response may be limited to objective, non-misleading facts rather than subjective motivations or obvious mathematical consequences.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mesa Analytics, a Nevada corporation based in Reno, agrees to merge with Redstone Metrics, a Colorado company, for $8 per share. After a rival bidder from Phoenix launches a $10 tender offer, Mesa grants Redstone a state-law-valid option to buy enough authorized but unissued shares to secure voting control; the rival sues in federal court alleging only that Mesa's directors used the option to entrench themselves and block shareholders from taking the higher bid.

Should the rival bidder prevail on its Section 14(e) claim?

Explanation. Section 14(e) does not federalize fiduciary-duty review of corporate defensive tactics. Under the majority opinion, a claim that managers acted for self-serving reasons to block a higher offer is, without more, a state-law fairness or fiduciary-duty complaint. 'Manipulative' is used in the technical sense tied to misleading investors, and misrepresentation is an essential element.