Connection lost
Server error
REVLON, INC. v. MacANDREWS & FORBES HOLDINGS 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: Revlon’s board, facing a hostile takeover, implemented defensive measures. When the company’s sale became inevitable, the court found the board breached its duty by favoring one bidder with a lock-up option, thereby ending an active auction, rather than maximizing shareholder value.
Legal Significance: Established “Revlon duties”: when a company’s sale or break-up is inevitable, the board’s primary fiduciary duty shifts from preserving the corporate entity to maximizing shareholder value by obtaining the best possible price.
REVLON, INC. v. MacANDREWS & FORBES HOLDINGS 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
Pantry Pride initiated a hostile tender offer for Revlon. Revlon’s board, advised by Lazard Freres and Martin Lipton, adopted defensive measures, including a Note Purchase Rights Plan (a “poison pill”) and a stock repurchase program. As Pantry Pride increased its bids, Revlon began negotiating with a white knight, Forstmann Little & Co. Initially, these defensive measures were deemed reasonable responses to an inadequate offer. However, when Pantry Pride’s bids became competitive and Revlon’s board authorized management to negotiate a sale, the company was effectively on the auction block. Revlon then agreed to a leveraged buyout by Forstmann, which included a “lock-up” option granting Forstmann the right to purchase valuable Revlon assets at a favorable price if another acquirer obtained 40% of Revlon’s shares. This agreement also included a “no-shop” provision preventing Revlon from soliciting other offers and a $25 million cancellation fee. The board justified these measures partly by a desire to protect noteholders who were concerned about the value of their notes due to the impending waiver of certain covenants. Pantry Pride challenged these measures, arguing they improperly ended the auction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Revlon board breach its fiduciary duties to shareholders by granting a lock-up option, a no-shop provision, and a cancellation fee to a preferred bidder once the sale of the company became inevitable, thereby prioritizing noteholder interests and ending an active auction rather than maximizing shareholder value?
Yes, the Revlon board breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty. Once the 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
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 the Revlon board breach its fiduciary duties to shareholders by granting a lock-up option, a no-shop provision, and a cancellation fee to a preferred bidder once the sale of the company became inevitable, thereby prioritizing noteholder interests and ending an active auction rather than maximizing shareholder value?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the "Revlon duties," significantly impacting corporate takeover law 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 nostr
Legal Rule
When the break-up or sale of a company becomes inevitable, the directors' 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
Legal Analysis
The Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's injunction, applying an enhanced scrutiny 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- When a company’s sale or break-up becomes inevitable, the board’s duty