Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp.

Decision Date28 April 1970
Docket NumberDocket 33983.,No. 249,249
Citation426 F.2d 569
PartiesCHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANGOR PUNTA CORPORATION and David W. Wallace, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Arthur L. Liman, Joseph J. Ackell, Alan L. Schlosser, Paul, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

James V. Ryan, William L. D. Barrett, Nancy L. Pasley, Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitchcock & Brookfield, New York City, for defendants-appellees.

Paul G. Pennoyer, Jr., Zachary Shimer, Irene Conrad Warshauer, Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, New York City, for Piper Aircraft et al.

Philip A. Loomis, Jr., General Counsel, David Ferber, Sol., Meyer Eisenberg, Associate General Counsel, Harvey A. Rowen, Attorney, Securities & Exchange Commission, amici curiae.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY,** SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

Submitted to the court in banc February 2, 1970.*

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant, Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., appeals from the denial of an order entered below in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain Bangor Punta Corporation from gaining and exercising control of Piper Aircraft Corporation pending a trial on the merits of whether certain shares of Piper were acquired by Bangor Punta in violation of governing Rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction but remand the case to the district court for further proceedings there not inconsistent with the within opinion.

This litigation comes at the end of a hard fought battle between Chris-Craft Industries and Bangor Punta Corporation for control of Piper Aircraft Corporation. The contest opened in January 1969 when Chris-Craft began to acquire Piper shares on the open market. At that time Piper had 5,000,000 authorized shares of $1.00 par common stock of which 1,641,890 shares were issued and outstanding. In January 1969 Chris-Craft made a public exchange offer for 300,000 Piper shares, and by February these efforts had gained Chris-Craft 34 per cent of the then outstanding Piper stock. On February 27, 1969. Chris-Craft filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement and proposed prospectus for an exchange offer for an additional 300,000 shares. Still another exchange offer was announced by Chris-Craft on May 7 and became effective July 24.

Chris-Craft's bid for control met strong resistance from the Piper family and Piper management, who owned 501,090 shares (31 per cent of the outstanding shares), and considered Chris-Craft to be a corporate raider. The management advised other Piper shareholders that Chris-Craft's tender offer was inadequate but offered 300,000 of Piper's authorized but unissued shares to Grumman Aircraft Corporation at the same price that Chris-Craft had offered. Although this transaction was never consummated, Piper initially advertised that Grumman had agreed to purchase the Piper shares and the court below noted that Chris-Craft's tender offer was adversely affected by this publicity.

Subsequently, on March 22, the Piper management issued 469,199 shares of authorized but unissued stock to acquire control of two subsidiary corporations, United States Concrete Pipe Company of Florida and Southply, Inc. Piper failed to seek the approval of the New York Stock Exchange and of its own shareholders as its listing agreement with the Exchange provided it should before issuing a significant new block of stock. Therefore, the Exchange refused to approve Piper's listing application. When the Exchange shortly afterward suspended trading in Piper shares and authorized proceedings before the SEC to delist Piper, Piper rescinded both transactions and trading in its shares was resumed.

At this juncture, in April 1969, the Piper family resumed talks which had begun as early as January with Bangor Punta Corporation. These negotiations bore fruit on May 8, when the two groups agreed that the family would exchange its 501,090 shares for specified Bangor Punta securities. Bangor Punta agreed in addition to use its best efforts to acquire enough additional Piper shares to make it the holder of more than 50% of the shares outstanding. As part of these best efforts, Bangor Punta agreed to make an exchange offer to all Piper shareholders "under which such holders will be entitled to exchange each share of Piper common stock held by them for Bangor Punta securities and/or cash having a value, in the written opinion of The First Boston Corporation, of $80 or more." If Bangor Punta succeeded in acquiring 50% or more of the stock, the consideration paid by Bangor Punta would be increased to make up to the Piper family the difference, if any difference there were, between the value of the package specified in the agreement and $80 per share.

The two occurrences which form the basis of Chris-Craft's complaint followed the negotiation of this contract. The first of these occurrences was the issuance by Bangor Punta and the Piper management of press releases announcing the transaction on May 8, the day the contract was signed and the day after Chris-Craft announced the terms of its second exchange offer. After stating that the Piper family would receive Bangor Punta securities for their shares, the Bangor Punta press release continued as follows:

Bangor Punta has agreed to file a registration statement with the SEC covering a proposed exchange offer for any and all of the remaining outstanding shares of Piper Aircraft for a package of Bangor Punta securities to be valued in the judgment of The First Boston Corporation at not less than $80 per Piper share. The registration statement covering all securities to be issued will be filed as soon as possible and a meeting of the shareholders of Bangor Punta Corporation will be called for approval.
Mr. Piper said that in view of Bangor Punta\'s long-standing policy of maintaining autonomy in the management of its operating companies, and the similarity of operating philosophies between the two companies, he and the Piper family would strongly support the merger and would recommend it to all shareholders.
Mr. Wallace said Bangor Punta welcomed the association with Piper Aircraft, its world-wide distribution, and its prestigious product name. He said the consolidation would align the Piper Aircraft name with other leading Bangor Punta companies, including Smith & Wesson, Starcraft Company, and Waukesha Motor Company.
Bangor Punta manufactures a wide variety of recreational vehicles including sailboats, houseboats, snowmobiles, campers, trailers and motor homes. A merger of Bangor Punta and Piper Aircraft would bring Bangor Punta into the light aircraft manufacturing business.
Sales of the combined companies would reach $450,000,000 in fiscal 1969, with approximately $180,000,000, or 40%, in the aircraft, recreational and leisure time fields.

Piper Aircraft Corporation simultaneously issued a similar press release.

These announcements attracted an immediate response from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which felt that the release constituted an offer to sell securities before any registration statement had been filed. Accordingly the SEC instituted an action against Bangor Punta and Piper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 26, and on the same day the defendants consented to the entry of judgment and the issuance of an injunction prohibiting further releases of a similar nature before Bangor Punta's registration statement and prospectus were filed.

The second occurrence or set of occurrences of which Chris-Craft complains took place between May 14 and May 23, when Bangor Punta purchased 120,200 shares of Piper stock for cash in private transactions. Chris-Craft alleges that on April 7, 1969, the staff of the SEC warned Chris-Craft's top executives that continued cash purchases of Piper stock while Chris-Craft's own exchange offer was outstanding, as the first one then was, would be regarded by the SEC as a violation of Rule 10b-6, which prohibits an issuer from purchasing securities while still participating in their distribution. Chris-Craft did refrain from further purchases during the remainder of its first tender offer and all of its second. Bangor Punta's purchases of stock between May 14 and May 23 occurred while its exchange offer was outstanding if one assumes that the May 8 press release constituted an offer to sell, as the SEC charged that it did. Bangor Punta states that although the SEC knew of its cash purchases at the time the consent decree was discussed, May 23 to May 26, the SEC nonetheless failed to challenge these purchases or ask for their rescission. However, it is undisputed that the SEC announced publicly its position on such purchases in a press release issued May 5.

Bangor Punta's exchange offer closed on July 29, and Chris-Craft's second offer ended August 4. At that time Bangor Punta held 45% of Piper's stock, and Chris-Craft held 40%. By the time this case came to argument on appeal, Chris-Craft had increased its holdings to 46.2% of Piper's common stock, while Bangor Punta had finally acquired a majority with 52.7%.

Chris-Craft commenced the present lawsuit on July 22, 1969, seeking a preliminary injunction which would order Bangor Punta (1) to offer the right to rescind to all persons who had tendered Piper shares to Bangor Punta pursuant to its exchange offer, (2) to refrain from acquiring further Piper shares, (3) to refrain from effecting a merger of Piper and Bangor Punta, and (4) to refrain from voting the 120,200 Piper shares acquired for cash between May 16 and May 23, 1969. The district court denied Chris-Craft's motion for a preliminary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Piper v. Industries, Inc First Boston Corporation v. Industries, Inc Bangor Punta Corporation v. Industries, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1977
    ...28, 1970 On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed Judge Tenney's denial of injunctive relief. 426 F.2d 569 (1970). In an opinion by Judge Waterman, the court held that Bangor had properly been allowed to continue soliciting Piper "Chris-Craft was fre......
  • Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 16, 1973
    ...the $80 valuation having overstepped the Rule 135 exemption (a contention with which our Court agreed in its earlier en banc decision, 426 F.2d at 574). Both defendants consented to a permanent injunction without admitting any of the allegations of the On May 16, BPC filed with the NYSE and......
  • Grewal v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 17, 2021
    ...opinion of value without benefit of the full set of facts contained in a prospectus. [Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp., 426 F.2d 569, 574-75 (2d Cir. 1970).] In short, under the great weight of state and federal authority, offers "are not limited to communications which co......
  • In re Dow Corning Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • December 28, 1998
    ...injunction cases arising under the Securities Exchange Acts and regulations issued thereunder. See, e.g., Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp., 426 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1970) (dealing with § 5(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77e); Capital Real Estate Investors ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE LURE OF THE PUBLICLY TRADED GOLD COMPANY: DOES SELLING 10% MAKE A COMPANY "PUBLIC"?
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Gold Mine Financing (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...supra. [9] See '33 Act § 5(c), 15 USC § 77e, 1 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 3240. [10] See Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp. 426 F2d 569 (2nd Cir 1970); see also note 5 supra. [11] The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) reviews the underwriting compensation as t......
  • Chapter 3 - § 3.4 • THE PROSPECTUS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Securities Law Deskbook: For Business Lawyers; Public Accountants; and Corporate Management (CBA) Chapter 3 The Registration Process Under the Securities Act of 1933, Including the Integrated Disclosure System
    • Invalid date
    ...SEC Rel. No. 33-8591, 2005 WL 1692642 (Aug. 3, 2005), at III.D.4(b)(iv)(B)(1).[87] Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp., 426 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 430 U.S. 1 (1977).[88] Id. at 572.[89] SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT