Revlon Rule - Definition
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
Table of ContentsRevlon Rule DefinitionA Little More on What is the Revlon RuleThumbing a Nose at the Revlon RuleAcademic Research
Revlon Rule Definition
When a hostile takeover is about to occur and is inevitable, a company's board of directors makes a satisfactory effort to get the company the highest possible value they can get. This is known as the Revlon Rule. This rule is characterized by a little explanation of a board of directors' fiduciary duties. It is generally restricted to the protection of a company from external imminent danger. All conditions being normal, it is not demanded of a director to make negotiations with an enemy who bids with hostility. Under the U.S. legal system, a fiduciary duty is a legal term that describes the relationship between two parties that necessitates one to act solely in the interest of the other.
A Little More on What is the Revlon Rule
The case between Revlon, Inc. and MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., which was tried before the Delaware Supreme Court resulted in the Revlon Rule. The court generally didn't draw its merit of a merger except the plaintiff could prove the failure of the board of directors to act in due care of the company. This rule has been used by judges to treat cases involving a company's sale since 1985. An important legal precedent that moved the board of directors' role away from preserving the company to increase the company's short-term shareholders' financial gains was set by the Revlon Rule. These Revlon duties resulted in a thorough inspection on the decisions made by a board.
Thumbing a Nose at the Revlon Rule
With the backing off Mr. Buffet, Heinz Company and Kraft Foods Group, Inc. agreed on a definitive merger agreement in March 2015. A no-shop provision was listed in this agreement which successfully prevented the board of directors of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. from seeking a better deal for Kraft shareholders under the spirit of the Revlon Rule. The reason why the board of directors decided to turn a blind eye on the rule has been unclear. It is unknown whether it was an independent decision or the board was daunted and signed the no-shop clause. The Buffet-backed group got the company on its own terms. This resulted in the saying "What Warren Buffett wants Warren Buffett gets".