Mai Basic Four, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.2d 212 · 1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2004
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Staffin v. Greenberg · Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, & Packers · Prudent Real Estate Trust v. Johncamp Realty, Inc. · Ronson Corp. v. Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are cognizant of the irreparable harm suffered by a takeover aspirant by any unjustifiable delay of consummation of a tender offer. But we also value the utility of injunctive relief to prevent violations of disclosure requirements.... Thus, to the extent target shareholders may be deprived of material information required to be disclosed under the Williams Act before irrevocably tendering their shares, they will be irreparably harmed. The interests in avoiding unnecessary delay in tender offers and in preventing violations of the Act being in a delicate balance, each in turn serving the public interest, we see the factor of likelihood of success on the merits as the critical one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In applying [the materiality] test to a cash tender offer, it is necessary to appreciate the problem faced by a stockholder of the target company in deciding whether to tender, to sell or to hold part of all his securities. It is true that, in the case of an "any and all” offer such as that here at issue, a stockholder who has firmly decided to tender has no interest in the financial position of the offeror other than its ability to pay ... since he will have severed all financial connections with the target.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We suspect that any bright-line test, separating those who are subject to the Williams Act from those who are not, would merely invite the ingenuity of resourceful counsel to place their client formally on the desired side of the line, whatever the underlying reality may be.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.