Connection lost
Server error
Ivanhoe Partners v. Newmont Mining Corp. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court denied a preliminary injunction sought by a hostile bidder (Ivanhoe) against a target company’s (Newmont) defensive measures, including a large dividend and a “street sweep” by its largest shareholder (Gold Fields), finding them largely permissible under Delaware law.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the application of Unocal scrutiny to complex defensive strategies, including dividends and third-party stock accumulations, and distinguishes when Revlon duties are triggered in a takeover context.
Ivanhoe Partners v. Newmont Mining Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ivanhoe Partners initiated a hostile tender offer for Newmont Mining Corp. Newmont, seeking to remain independent, negotiated with its largest shareholder, Consolidated Gold Fields PLC. Newmont declared a substantial $33 per share dividend, which would partially finance Gold Fields’ purchase of additional Newmont stock. Gold Fields then conducted a “street sweep,” rapidly acquiring Newmont shares on the open market to increase its stake from 26.2% to 49.7%. Concurrently, Newmont and Gold Fields entered into a standstill agreement (initially the September 20 agreement, later amended to the September 25 agreement). This agreement restricted Gold Fields’ ability to acquire more shares, limited its board representation to 40%, required it to vote for management’s director slate (in the initial version), and restricted transfer of its shares. Ivanhoe and Newmont shareholders sought to enjoin the dividend and the street sweep, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, including improper entrenchment and violations of Revlon and Unocal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did Newmont’s directors breach their fiduciary duties by declaring a substantial dividend and facilitating a “street sweep” by Gold Fields, coupled with a standstill agreement, as defensive measures against Ivanhoe’s hostile tender offer?
The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Newmont’s directors largely satisfied Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did Newmont’s directors breach their fiduciary duties by declaring a substantial dividend and facilitating a “street sweep” by Gold Fields, coupled with a standstill agreement, as defensive measures against Ivanhoe’s hostile tender offer?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the nuanced application of *Unocal* to multifaceted defensive strategies, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo
Legal Rule
When a board implements defensive measures in response to a perceived takeover Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiu
Legal Analysis
The court applied the *Unocal* standard to Newmont's defensive actions. It found Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepte
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A board’s defensive restructuring to remain independent, which included a large
