Warner Communications, Inc. v. Murdoch

OPINION

The conduct of corporate affairs often produces highly charged, hostile battles for corporate control; battles which often resemble a corporate form of feudal warfare. Invariably, these battles are taken out of the marketplace and brought into court, whereby courts are asked to serve as arbiters between the warring factions. This case arises out of such an instance.

BACKGROUND

Commencing in August, 1983, The News Corporation, Ltd. (“News Corporation”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, News International pic (“News International”), began making substantial open market purchases of common stock in Warner Communications, Inc. (“Warner”). News Corporation and News International are companies which are principally controlled and managed by Keith Rupert Murdoch. Forty-six percent of the common stock of News Corporation is owned by Cruden Investments Pty. Limited (“Cruden”), whose stock is wholly owned by various trusts for the benefit of Murdoch and members of his family. Murdoch is Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of News Corporation, and is Chairman of the Board and Managing Director of News International.

On December 1, 1983, News Corporation and News International jointly filed a Schedule 13D Statement with the SEC pursuant to § 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 1 disclosing their acquisition of 6.7% of Warner’s outstanding common stock. On December 13, 1983, News Corporation and News International filed an Amendment to their 13D Statement, disclosing additional purchases of Warner stock that increased their ownership to 7% of Warner’s outstanding common stock.

Shortly after News Corporation and News International announced their foothold position in Warner, Warner commenced negotiations with Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. (“Chris-Craft”) regarding an exchange of stock between the two companies. On December 29, 1983, the two companies announced, in a press release, that they had reached a binding agreement (the “Exchange Agreement”) on an exchange of stock.

*1486 The Exchange Agreement provided that Warner would issue to BHC, Inc. (“BHC”), a subsidiary of Chris-Craft, 15,200,000 shares of non-convertible cumulative preferred stock. The stock would carry voting rights, representing approximately 19% of the total voting power of all outstanding Warner stock, as well as antidilution provisions protecting against the diminution of this voting power. In addition, the stock would carry a “put” provision under which BHC could resell the stock to Warner if any shareholder unaffiliated with Chris-Craft acquired 33.3% or more of Warner’s outstanding common stock. The repurchase price would be equal to the highest price paid by the 33.3% shareholder for any shares purchased within the preceding six month period.

The Exchange Agreement, however, provided Warner with the option of exchanging the non-convertible cumulative preferred stock for an equal number of convertible cumulative preferred shares. The 15,200,000 preferred shares would be convertible into 12,001,920 common shares, amounting to approximately 15% of Warner’s outstanding common stock. The convertible preferred stock, like the non-convertible preferred stock, would carry voting rights and antidilution provisions protecting against the diminution of the stock’s voting power. However, in contrast to the non-convertible preferred stock, the convertible preferred shares would not possess a put provision triggered by another shareholder’s accumulation of Warner stock.

Under the Exchange Agreement, BHC would issue to Warner 143,750 shares of convertible cumulative preferred stock. The preferred stock would carry voting rights, representing approximately 20% of the total voting power of all outstanding BHC stock. The preferred shares would be convertible into 425,000 shares of BHC common stock after September 15, 1984. The 425,000 shares would represent approximately 42.5% of the total voting power of all outstanding BHC stock.

In response to Warner’s and Chris-Craft’s December 29, 1983 announcement of their Exchange Agreement, News Corporation and News International, on December 30, 1983, filed a Notification and Report under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976, 2 seeking regulatory clearance to purchase up to 49.9% of Warner’s outstanding voting securities. On January 5, 1984, News Corporation and News International filed a second Amendment to their 13D Statement, disclosing their possible intention to acquire up to 49.9% of Warner’s outstanding voting securities. Since the expiration, on January 18, 1984, of the waiting period applicable to News Corporation and News International under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, the companies have resumed their purchases of Warner stock on the open market, increasing their holdings to over 8.5% of Warner’s outstanding common stock.

On January 6, 1984, News International filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Warner, Chris-Craft, BHC and inside directors of the companies, claiming, inter alia, that the terms of the Exchange Agreement are unfair to Warner and its shareholders, and that the Agreement was entered into for the primary purpose of entrenching Warner’s management. On January 12, 1984, Chancellor Brown denied News International’s motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the consummation of the exchange of stock between Warner and Chris-Craft. News International pic v. Warner Communications, et al., C.A. No. 7420 (Del.Ch., January 12, 1984). Chancellor Brown based his ruling, in part, upon Warner’s assurances that Warner’s non-convertible preferred stock, with its put provision, would be used only as a bridge security in the transaction and that Warner would exercise its option to exchange the non-convertible preferred shares for the convertible preferred shares, upon securing the New York Stock Exchange’s approval of the listing of the com *1487 mon stock underlying the convertible preferred stock. Id., at 2-3.

On January 18, 1984, Warner and Chris-Craft consummated their exchange of stock (the “W-CC Transaction”). Warner initially issued its non-convertible preferred stock to BHC in exchange for BHC’s convertible preferred stock. However, on January 19, 1984, the New York Stock Exchange approved the listing of the common stock underlying Warner’s convertible preferred stock. Thus, on January 19, 1984, Warner exercised its option to exchange the non-convertible preferred shares issued to BHC for the convertible preferred stock.

On January 29, 1984, Chris-Craft, BHC, and United Television, Inc. (“UTV”), a subsidiary of BHC, jointly filed a 13D Statement with the SEC, disclosing their holdings of Warner stock and their possible intention of acquiring additional shares in the future. As a result of the W-CC Transaction and open market purchases of Warner common stock, the Chris-Craft group presently owns in excess of 20% of Warner’s outstanding voting securities.

THE LAWSUIT

On January 10, 1984, Warner filed the present suit against Murdoch; News Corporation; News International; Cruden; and Stanley Shuman, a director of News Corporation and an investment advisor to Murdoch (the “Murdoch Group”). Warner claims that the 13D Statements of News Corporation and News International are false and misleading in various respects, and that the Murdoch Group’s acquisition of Warner stock threatens to create regulatory and contractual problems for Warner, resulting in tortious interference with Warner’s conduct of business.

News International, 3 in turn, has filed counterclaims and third-party claims against Warner; Warner’s directors; Chris-Craft; BHC; and Chris-Craft’s directors. News International claims that the W-CC Transaction is the end-product of a long-planned, clandestine entrenchment scheme by Warner’s management. News International alleges that, by concealing the entrenchment plan and by engaging in the W-CC Transaction, Warner and its directors have violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 4 and Rule 10b-5 5 promulgated thereunder, and § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. 6 In addition, News International claims that, by participating in, and aiding and abetting these violations, Chris-Craft, BHC, and Chris-Craft’s directors have violated § 10(b) and § 20 7 of the Exchange Act, and § 17(a) of the Securities Act. Furthermore, News International claims that the aforementioned alleged misconduct by Warner and its directors, together with other alleged misdeeds, constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of § 1961, et seq. of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). 8

News International also alleges that Chris-Craft and BHC have filed a late and false and misleading 13D Statement in violation of § 13(d) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934. 9 In addition, News International claims that Warner; Warner’s directors; Chris-Craft; BHC; and Chris-Craft’s directors have formed a § 13(d) “group” for the purpose of acquiring Warner stock and pooling their shares to form a control block; yet the parties have not filed a 13D Statement disclosing the existence of the group, in violation of § 13(d) of the Exchange Act.

On the basis of these alleged violations, News International seeks injunctive relief, including rescission of the W-CC Transaction, and treble damages under § 1964(c) of RICO. Warner and Chris-Craft and BHC *1488 have filed Motions to Dismiss News International’s claims on grounds of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court dismisses with prejudice all of the claims against Warner, and all of the claims, except the § 13(d) claims, against Chris-Craft and BHC. Furthermore, although Warner’s directors and Chris-Craft’s directors have not joined in the motions to dismiss, 10 the grounds for the Court’s dismissal of the § 10(b), § 17(a), and RICO claims against Warner, and the § 10(b), § 20, and § 17(a) claims against Chris-Craft and BHC, apply equally to the respective claims against Warner’s and Chris-Craft’s directors. Therefore, with the exception of the § 13(d) claims, all of News International’s claims against Warner’s and Chris-Craft’s directors are dismissed with prejudice.

SECTION 10(b) CLAIMS AGAINST WARNER AND ITS DIRECTORS

News International’s pleadings are filled with allegations of the unfairness of the W-CC Transaction to Warner and its shareholders, and the ulterior purpose of the transaction to entrench Warner’s management. These allegations, however, simply amount to claims of breach of fiduciary duty by Warner’s management. It is clear that such allegation's, standing alone, fail to state a claim under Rule 10b-5. Sante Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 97 S.Ct. 1292, 51 L.Ed.2d 480 (1977). Rule 10b-5 provides a remedy for fraud committed in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Essential to a claim of fraud is the element of deception or misrepresentation. Id. at 471-76, 97 S.Ct. at 1299-1302.

News International’s claims, however, go further than these simple allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. As more fully developed in News International’s briefs and at oral argument on the present motions to dismiss, News International alleges that the W-CC Transaction is the end-product of a long-planned entrenchment scheme by Warner’s management which has been fraudulently concealed from Warner’s shareholders and the market in general for a number of years. News International appears to contend that, as a result of this concealment, the Murdoch Group has been fraudulently misled into purchasing a substantial block of Warner’s stock with the possible intention of later acquiring control of Warner, 11 only to have Warner’s management undertake the W-CC Transaction to block a possible takeover bid. News International further contends that Warner’s management has continued to conceal this entrenchment scheme, as reflected by alleged omissions in the December 29, 1983 press release announcing the W-CC Transaction. Although these allegations facially appear to state a claim under 10b-5, they fail to withstand scrutiny upon closer examination.

1. Concealed 2-Step Entrenchment Plan

News International contends that management’s entrenchment plan was first manifested in certain amendments to Warner’s Charter and By-Laws, which were submitted to, and approved by, Warner’s shareholders in 1975. The purpose and *1489 effect of the amendments are to make it difficult for Warner’s management to be removed from office, and difficult for another company to acquire Warner by means of a hostile takeover.

In particular, Warner’s Charter provides that certain major corporate transactions, such as a merger or sale of substantially all corporate assets, between Warner and a beneficial owner of 10% of Warner’s voting stock, must be approved by 80% of Warner’s voting shareholders, as well as a majority of shareholders other than the 10% stockholder. Warner’s directors, however, are vested with the discretion to waive this requirement and apply less restrictive shareholder approval requirements otherwise applicable under the Charter.

Warner’s Charter also provides that Warner’s directors may be removed from office (other than by election) only for cause and by the vote of 80% of Warner’s shareholders and a majority of shareholders other than a 10% stockholder. In addition, Warner’s By-Laws provide for a three class, staggered board of directors, and vest the directors with the discretion to enlarge the present 14 member board to as many as 31 directors and fill the newly created vacancies. Finally, the Charter provides that each of the aforementioned Charter and By-Law provisions may be amended only by a vote of 80% of Warner’s shareholders and a majority of shareholders other than a 10% stockholder.

News International alleges that these Charter and By-Law amendments were the first step of a 2-step entrenchment plan by Warner’s management. The alleged second step of the plan consists of the issuance of approximately 20% of Warner’s stock to a “friendly” party in the event of a hostile takeover attempt of Warner. In conjunction with the supermajority charter provisions, the issuance of 20% of Warner’s stock to a friendly party creates a “veto block” that substantially impedes a hostile takeover. News International contends that the W-CC Transaction constitutes the second step of this entrenchment plan, and that Warner’s management has, for many years, fraudulently concealed this long-planned entrenchment scheme, to the detriment of News International and other Warner shareholders.

News International, however, has set forth few specific facts to support these general allegations. The only facts that are alleged to support the claim of a long-planned, 2-step management entrenchment scheme are the 1975 adoption of the Charter and By-Law provisions and the recent W-CC Transaction. Even assuming that each of these sets of actions were illegitimately undertaken by management for the primary purpose of entrenchment, News International has set forth no specific facts to support the claim that these two sets of actions, occurring eight years apart, were part of a common, pre-developed plan of entrenchment. Furthermore, apart from the December 29th press release, discussed below, News International has identified no specific instances of affirmative concealment of the alleged entrenchment plan that would support a claim under 10b-5. 12 That is, News International has identified no specific public statements by Warner or its management that are false and misleading for failing to disclose the alleged entrenchment scheme. 13

*1490 To state a claim for fraud, under the securities laws or otherwise, a party must plead the elements of the fraud with a high degree of particularity. F.R.C.P. 9(b); see Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd,., 681 F.2d 111, 114 (2d Cir.1982). In any lawsuit, a party may not simply plead conclusory allegations in hopes of ascertaining facts, through discovery, to support the claims. This is particularly true with respect to fraud claims, which simply by their pendency, have an “in terrorem” effect that can produce significant injury to a defendant. News International’s pleadings, even as supplemented by its briefs, fail to satisfy this requirement of particularity. However, even assuming the truth of News International’s very general allegations, the Court finds no violation of the federal securities laws in the failure of Warner’s management to publicly disclose an entrenchment plan.

It is well established that corporate officers and directors do not violate the federal securities laws by failing to disclose an entrenchment motive or entrenchment scheme underlying their actions. See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658, 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Issen v. GSC Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.Supp. 1278, 1291 (N.D.Ill.1981); Bucher v. Shumway, [1979-80 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 97,142 at 96,299-300 (S.D.N.Y.1979), aff’d. mem., 622 F.2d 572, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 120, 66 L.Ed.2d 48 (1980); Tyco Laboratories v. Kimbell, 444 F.Supp. 292, 298 (E.D. Pa.1977); Jewelcor, Inc. v. Pearlman, 397 F.Supp. 221, 248 (S.D.N.Y.1975). This is simply one component of the general rule that the federal securities laws do not impose a duty upon parties to publicly admit the culpability of their actions. See, e.g., Atchley v. Qonaar Corp., 704 F.2d 355, 358 (7th Cir.1983); Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d at 288; Biesenbach v. Guenther, 588 F.2d 400, 402 (3d Cir. 1978).

The policy considerations underlying this rule are principally threefold. First, in the absence of such a rule, parties would be placed in the untenable position of either publicly confessing their potential misconduct before their guilt is properly determined by a court, or incurring liability for damages resulting from their failure to disclose the misconduct. Second, absent such a rule, instances of misconduct which do not constitute securities fraud but which constitute violations of state law, would, nevertheless, often give rise to a 10b-5 claim for failure to disclose the misconduct. As a result, the state law claim would effectively be boot-strapped into a 10b-5 claim and brought into the federal courts for resolution, circumventing the federalism considerations underlying Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. at 478-79, 97 S.Ct. at 1303-04. Third, the rule does not significantly impede the flow of material information to investors. The rule limits only the duty to publicly admit to misconduct; it does not limit a party’s duty to disclose all material facts relating to the party’s actions, including those that might relate to misconduct.

This third point is pertinent to this case. For although Warner’s management would not be obligated under 10b-5 to disclose an entrenchment scheme per se, it is arguable that management would be obligated to disclose material facts relating to such a scheme, such as management’s planned strategies for responding to a hostile takeover attempt. Notwithstanding the potential materiality of such information, the Court finds that such information need not be disclosed.

Corporations frequently undertake “defénsive reviews” to consider their op *1491 tions in the event of a hostile takeover attempt. Often, pre-planned strategies are developed for responding to an undesired suiter. See generally A. Fleischer, Tender Offers: Defenses, Responses, and Planning (1981). Such pre-planned strategies are not necessarily illegitimate. In fact, they may serve a positive function. Defensive tactics themselves are illegitimate only if a target’s management fails to exercise its business judgment and engages in such tactics for the primary purpose of entrenchment. See, e.g., Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corp., 638 F.2d 357, 380-83 (2d Cir.1980); Johnson v. True-blood, 629 F.2d 287, 292-93 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 999, 101 S.Ct. 1704, 68 L.Ed.2d 200 (1981). Pre-planning for the contingency of a hostile takeover bid might reduce the risk that, under the pressure of a takeover bid, management will fail to exercise its business judgment and undertake hastily planned defensive actions that substantially harm shareholder interests. Even illegitimate defensive tactics might be rendered less harmful to shareholders as a result of pre-planning.

Pre-planned defensive strategies, however, are inherently contingent in nature. They are triggered only if a hostile takeover attempt occurs and the target’s management decides to oppose the takeover. Moreover, even a firmly established defensive strategy, to be effective, must be flexibly adapted to respond to the particular facts of a specific takeover bid.

It is well established that the federal securities laws do not impose a duty to disclose information regarding current or future plans that are uncertain and contingent in nature. See, e.g., Reiss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 711 F.2d 11, 14 (2d Cir.1983); Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 535 F.2d 388, 398 (8th Cir.1976); Susquehanna Corp. v. Pan American Sulphur Co., 423 F.2d 1075, 1085-86 (5th Cir.1970). This principle is grounded in the concern that it might be just as misleading to investors to disclose contingent plans as it might be to fail to disclose such plans. Requiring disclosure would place a party in the harsh position of facing liability if the plans are not disclosed but they come to fruition, as well as liability if the plans are disclosed but they fail to be consummated.

On the basis of these considerations, courts have tended to apply a strong presumption against imposing liability under the federal securities laws for failing to publicly disclose plans that are contingent in nature. The issue of disclosure often arises in cases where a company is actively seeking to undertake a merger or other major transaction, or is actually in the process of negotiating such a transaction. Courts have generally held that even at these stages in the planning of a transaction, the federal securities laws do not require disclosure of even the possibility of the transaction's occurrence. See, e.g., Reiss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 711 F.2d at 13-14; Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 535 F.2d at 397-98.

This presumption against disclosure has been applied in cases where, during the heat of a takeover battle, a target company is actively negotiating a defensive merger. See, e.g., Staffin v. Greenberg, 672 F.2d 1196, 1205-07 (3d Cir.1982); Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co., 411 F.Supp. 1208, 1210 (S.D.N.Y.1975). In light of this strong presumption against required disclosure of contemplated transactions even at this stage of negotiation, the Court finds that any strategy by Warner’s management to issue a block of stock to a friendly party in the event of a hostile takeover bid did not require disclosure at the mere planning stage, regardless of the strength of management’s commitment to ultimately follow through with the defensive tactic. Thus, News International fails to state a claim with respect to management’s alleged concealment of an entrenchment scheme prior to the consummation of the Exchange Agreement regarding the W-CC Transaction.

This conclusion is reinforced by the delicate balance to be struck between the federal securities laws’ disclosure goals and the securities laws’ effect of regulating corporate management. There is a point *1492 beyond which the application of the securities laws excessively interferes with conduct of corporate affairs, see Financial Industrial Fund, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 474 F.2d 514, 518 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874, 94 S.Ct. 155, 38 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973), or the regulation of corporate mismanagement under state law. See Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. at 478-79, 97 S.Ct. at 1303-04; Ketchum v. Green, 557 F.2d 1022, 1027-28 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940, 98 S.Ct. 431, 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). Although not determinative of the Court’s holding, the Court believes that imposing a duty upon management to disclose strategies for responding to undesired takeover bids would extend the scope of the securities laws beyond this point of balance.

As noted above, management’s pre-planning for the possibility of a hostile takeover bid may serve a positive function. It removes management’s decision-making from the pressures of an immediate takeover battle, thereby tending to reduce the possibility of irrational responses to a takeover bid. Requiring public disclosure by defensive strategies, however, may have a chilling effect upon such pre-planning. Not only does the contingent nature of such strategies place management in the untenable position of potentially incurring liability both if the strategies are disclosed and if they are not, but the potentially questionable nature of management’s actions might also give rise to vexatious shareholder suits if the plans are disclosed. The net result may be to deter management from engaging in pre-planning for the contingency of a hostile takeover bid.

In the event of a takeover battle, it often would not be difficult for a bidder to facially state a claim that management has failed to disclose previously developed defensive strategies or that management’s prior disclosures regarding such strategies are false and misleading in some respect. Regardless of the legitimacy of management’s defensive tactics under state law, a bidder might be able to enjoin management’s actions on the basis of its disclosure claims or at least receive a substantial sum in damages on the basis of such claims. The result would be to effectively preempt a substantial body of state corporate law, contrary to the principles underlying Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. at 478-79, 97 S.Ct. at 1303-04, and provide bidders with a substantial weapon that underwrites the risks of takeover attempts, contrary to the intended neutrality of the federal securities laws with respect to the positions of bidders and targets. See Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 27-31, 97 S.Ct. 926, 942-944, 51 L.Ed.2d 124 (1977), reh’g. denied, 430 U.S. 976, 97 S.Ct. 1668, 52 L.Ed.2d 371 (1977); Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49, 58-59, 95 S.Ct. 2069, 2075-2076, 45 L.Ed.2d 12 (1975).

These considerations must be counterbalanced against the benefits of requiring disclosure of defensive strategies. Although there can be little dispute that such information is of some importance to investors, the degree of its materiality is subject to question. It is no secret that companies almost invariably engage in defensive tactics when faced with an undesired takeover bid. Under the federal securities laws, investors are charged with knowledge of information of which they reasonably should be aware. See, e.g., Seibert v. Sperry Rand Corp., 586 F.2d 949, 952 (2d Cir. 1978); Rodman v. Grant Foundation, 460 F.Supp. 1028, 1035-36 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff’d., 608 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.1979). In this respect, courts have often held that investors are charged with knowledge of the “universal” interest of corporate officers and directors in maintaining corporate control. See, e.g., Brayton v. Ostrau, 561 F.Supp. 156, 165 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Tyco Laboratories v. Kimbell, 444 F.Supp. at 298; Falkenberg v. Baldwin, [1977-1978 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96,086, at 91,911 (S.D.N.Y.1977).

Of course, the general knowledge that target companies engage in defensive tactics does not equate with knowledge of the specific intentions of a particular company. Nevertheless, given the inherently contingent nature of defensive strategies, it is very doubtful whether the federal securi *1493 ties laws could reasonably impose any greater duty upon management than to inform investors of the possibility of management’s engaging in defensive tactics. Although in many instances a general statement to this effect might be materially incomplete, it is questionable whether even legally sufficient disclosures would provide significantly greater information to investors. More likely than not, a disclosure requirement would often simply provide a basis for costly and vexatious litigation.

These points are illustrated by the facts in this case. The 1975 Charter and By-Law amendments, by their very nature, would seem to put investors on notice that Warner’s management might be unreceptive to an unsolicited takeover bid. Moreover, if management were to engage in defensive tactics in response to a takeover attempt, a logical tactic would be to issue stock to a friendly party to create a veto block in conjunction with the supermajority charter provisions. To the extent that these facts are not implied by the very existence of the Charter and By-Law provisions, they are more explicitly revealed by the 1975 proxy statement proposing the Charter and ByLaw amendments. The proxy statement provides in relevant part:

The proposed amendments are prompted by the frequent attempts in recent years by one corporation or group to acquire control of another corporation through the acquisition of a substantial number of shares of the other corporation’s stock followed by a forced merger or other similar transaction. Such a transaction might not be in the best interests of the Company or its stockholders. The proposed amendments will make it more difficult to effect such a transaction and might therefore discourage any attempt to do so. For these reasons, the board of directors believes the amendments should be adopted____ In considering these proposed amendments stockholders should recognize that one result is that the board of directors will be able to determine the vote by which the aforementioned mergers, acquisitions or other similar transactions with a substantial stockholder must be approved by the stockholders, and such determination may in turn result in the retention by management of control over the affairs of the Company. Furthermore, under circumstances in which the amendments would apply, a minority in interest of the stockholders may prevent a transaction favored by a majority of the stockholders. For example, if another corporation acquires 10% of the Company’s outstanding voting stock and proposes (and votes for) a merger of the Company into that corporation, the merger proposal may be blocked by the holders of more than 20% of the total outstanding voting stock of the Company. And if another corporation acquires 80% of the Company’s outstanding voting stock and proposes (and votes for) a merger of the Company into that corporation, the merger proposal may be blocked by the holders of 10% of the total outstanding voting stock of the Company, as such transaction requires the approval (described above) of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the other corporation.

Warner Communications, Inc. Proxy Statement 18-19 (March 81, 1975).

Thus, it is questionable whether a reasonable investor, charged with knowledge of information of which he reasonably should be aware, would be without notice of the possibility that Warner’s management might issue stock to create a veto block in response to a potential takeover bid. Certainly, it is questionable whether a reasonable investor in the position of the Murdoch Group, with its substantial experience in the field of corporate acquisitions, would be without knowledge of this possibility.

The Court, however, does not, and need not, reach this issue. As a matter of law, Warner’s management had no duty to disclose any defensive strategies at the mere planning stage, given the inherently contingent nature of such plans. Nevertheless, the policy considerations discussed above *1494 reinforce this holding. They are considerations to which a court must not be blind.

2. False and Misleading Press Release

News International contends that Warner’s management has continued to conceal its entrenchment scheme. Specifically, News International alleges that the December 29th press release announcing the W-CC Transaction contains numerous material omissions designed to conceal the true purpose of the transaction.

Among the alleged omissions are the failure to disclose that the transaction is designed to entrenchment management; that the transaction lacks a valid business purpose; and that the transaction is unfair to Warner and its shareholders. However, as discussed above, Warner’s management is not obligated under the federal securities laws to publicly disclose an entrenchment motive to the transaction. See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d at 288; Issen v. GSC Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.Supp. at 1291; Bucher v. Shumway, [1979-1980 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L. Rep. (CCH) at 96,299-300; Tyco Laboratories v. Kimbell, 444 F.Supp. at 298; Jewel-cor, Inc. v. Pearlman, 397 F.Supp. at 248. For similar reasons, management is not required to disclose, inter alia, that the transaction lacks a valid business purpose or is unfair to Warner and its shareholders. See, e.g., Beisenbach v. Guenther, 588 F.2d at 402; Dofflemyer v. W.F. Hall Printing Co., 558 F.Supp. 372, 384 (D.Del.1983); Merritt v. Colonial Foods, Inc., 499 F.Supp. 910, 914 (D.Del.1980).

News International does allege other omissions regarding the terms and effects of the W-CC Transaction which might render the press release materially false and misleading under 10b-5. Nevertheless, News International has failed to allege any specific injury resulting from these omissions. Furthermore, the undisputed facts in the case, even when construed in a light most favorable to News International, fail to indicate any such injury-

Rather than being deceived by the press release, the Murdoch Group filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery to block the W-CC Transaction within days after the announcement of the transaction in the press release. Thus, News International cannot claim injury under Goldberg v. Meridor, 567 F.2d 209, 217-21 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1069, 98 S.Ct. 1249, 55 L.Ed.2d 771 (1978), and its progeny, see Healey v. Catalyst Recovery of Pennsylvania, Inc.,