Sunoco, Inc. (NYSE:SUN) Investor Files Lawsuit In Effort To Block The Merger With Energy Transfer Partners

If you purchased shares of Sunoco, Inc. (NYSE:SUN) prior to April 30, 2012 and currently hold any of those NYSE:SUN shares, you have certain options and you should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.

To have your information reviewed for options and to recieve notifications about this case, please use this form. You may also send an email to, or call us at (858) 779-1554.
Company Name(s): 
Case Name: 
Sunoco Deal Case 05/04/2012
Case Status: 
Lawsuit Filed
Affected Securities
Lawsuit Overview
Type of Lawsuit: 
Mergers and Acquisition
Date Filed: 

May 07, 2012 (Shareholders Foundation) -- An investor in NYSE:SUN shares filed a lawsuit against directors of Sunoco, Inc in effort to stop the proposed takeover of Sunoco, Inc by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. at a value of approximately $50.13 per share.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to NYSE:SUN stockholders arising out of the attempt to sell Sunoco, Inc at an unfair price via and unfair process.

On Apr. 30, 2012, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) and Sunoco, Inc. (NYSE: SUN) announced that they have entered into a merger agreement whereby Energy Transfer Partners will acquire Sunoco in a unit and cash transaction valued at $50.13 per share, which consists of $25 in cash and 0.5245 of an NYSE: ETP common unit, or a total consideration of approximately $5.3 billion, based on ETP’s closing price on April 27, 2012.

However, the plaintiff alleges that $50.13 per NYSE:SUN share undervalues the company and is unfair to NYSE:SUN stockholders. Indeed at least one analyst has set the high target price for NYSE:SUN stocks at $51 per share. Additionally, Sunoco’s financial performance improved over the past recent years. Its annual revenue rose from $29.69billion in 2009 to $46.82billion in 2011.

Furthermore, the plaintiff says that the process is also unfair to NYSE:SUN stockholders. The plaintiff claims that the board of directors has disloyally agreed to deal protection devices, such as a $255million termination fee, which will prevent a superior offer.