Richland v. Crandall

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1967 · Corporations

262 F. Supp. 538 (1967)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsSale of corporate assetsDirectors' fiduciary dutiesProxy disclosurefiduciary dutysale of assetsliquidationgross inadequacy of price

Facts

Fuller, a New Jersey construction company, sold its business as a going concern to BCLM for approximately $37 per share after approval by its board and by 70.6% of its stockholders, exceeding the two-thirds vote required by New Jersey law. Some Fuller insiders were connected to the purchasing group: Box and Lawson were members of it, and Crandall was to serve temporarily as chairman and director of BCLM after the sale, so those three did not attend the board meeting approving the transaction. Plaintiffs claimed the price was grossly inadequate, that directors had a duty to keep Fuller in business, and that the proxy statement contained material misstatements and omissions. After the sale had already been approved and litigation had begun, Fuller and its directors obtained an indemnity from BCLM against liability arising from the suit.

Issue

Whether Fuller's directors breached fiduciary duties by approving and recommending the sale, by failing to continue the corporation in business, or by accepting the post-approval indemnity agreement, and whether the proxy statement violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) by containing material misstatements or omissions.

Rule

Directors considering a sale of corporate assets owe an uncompromising fiduciary duty to protect the corporation and stockholders and must exercise the same degree of care that an ordinary prudent person would exercise in his own affairs to ensure the transaction is entirely fair and the consideration adequate and equitable. However, there is no mechanical legal requirement that each director spend any fixed amount of time on the transaction or insist on any particular appraisal method, so long as the directors' judgment was reasonably prudent under all the circumstances. A sale price is not 'grossly inadequate' merely because it is less than actual value; it must be so far below actual value as to shock the conscience. For proxy disclosure, a material fact is one that, if disclosed, would normally be expected to influence a reasonable stockholder in voting on the proposal; directors must make full and fair disclosure of such facts, but need not include every detail.

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.

Lakefront Fabrication, Inc., an Ohio corporation based in Cleveland, received an offer to sell all of its operating assets to Harbor Steel Holdings, a fictional buyer based in Pittsburgh. At a three-hour board meeting, the outside directors reviewed the company’s recent earnings trend, stock trading history, audited financials, and a fairness letter obtained by the buyer; they did not commission a separate appraisal, and two conflicted insiders did not attend the vote.

Minority shareholders sue, arguing the directors breached fiduciary duty because the meeting was too short and the board failed to obtain its own independent appraisal. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that directors considering a sale of corporate assets owe an uncompromising fiduciary duty and must exercise the care of an ordinary prudent person to ensure the transaction is entirely fair. But the court rejected mechanical requirements regarding the amount of time spent or the type of appraisal used. If the directors reasonably relied on their experience, financial materials, and expert input under the circumstances, the absence of a separate appraisal and a short meeting alone do not establish breach.