Polaroid Corporation v. Disney

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988 · Corporations

862 F.2d 987 (1988)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsTender offersSecurities regulationWilliams ActStandingPreliminary injunctionsAll Holders Rule17 C.F.R. 240.14d-10(a)

Facts

Shamrock commenced a cash tender offer for all outstanding Polaroid common shares at $42 per share, but expressly excluded shares held by Polaroid's ESOP. The offer was conditioned on, among other things, either invalidation of the ESOP shares or Shamrock's own satisfaction that those shares were not validly outstanding; if that condition was not met, Shamrock stated it currently intended to amend the offer by waiving the ESOP condition, reducing the price to $40, and adjusting the minimum tender condition. Polaroid sued, alleging that excluding the ESOP shares violated the SEC's All Holders Rule and that Shamrock misrepresented its compliance with Federal Reserve margin regulations. Shamrock's financing structure depended on acquiring enough shares to qualify for an exception to the margin rules, yet the offer suggested Shamrock could comply even if it acquired 90% excluding the ESOP shares.

Issue

Whether a target corporation has standing to seek injunctive relief for a bidder's alleged violation of the SEC All Holders Rule. Whether Shamrock's tender offer contained a material misrepresentation under section 14(e) by suggesting that its financing would comply with margin regulations in circumstances expressly contemplated by the offer when it would not.

Rule

The All Holders Rule creates an implied private right of action for injured target shareholders, but not for the target corporation; a target corporation therefore lacks standing to sue under that Rule. By contrast, a target corporation has standing under section 14(e) to seek to enjoin material misrepresentations in a tender offer, and a preliminary injunction may issue when the plaintiff shows a reasonable probability of success, irreparable harm, lack of significant harm to others, and that relief is not contrary to the public interest. A misrepresentation is material under section 14(e) if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding whether to sell stock.

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.

Granite Vision, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Portland, Maine, becomes the target of a cash tender offer by Harbor Crest Acquisition, LLC. The offer seeks all outstanding common shares at $28 per share but excludes shares held by Granite Vision's employee stock plan; no plan participant or trustee joins the suit, and Granite Vision seeks an injunction under SEC Rule 14d-10(a).

Is Granite Vision likely to have standing to pursue the All Holders Rule claim?

Explanation. The majority held that the All Holders Rule supports an implied private right of action for injured target shareholders, but not for the target corporation itself. A target corporation attempting to enforce the rule is asserting shareholder trading rights rather than its own rights, and the court rejected third-party or associational standing for that purpose.