Supreme Court Reverses Chancery's Dell Appraisal Decision
In one of the most anticipated opinions of 2017, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s appraisal decision valuing Dell, Inc.’s shares after its management-led buyout in 2013. In its unanimous en banc decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion by relying exclusively on its own discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis while affording no weight to the transaction price when valuing the company’s shares at the time of its 2013 going-private merger. So, consistent with its recent decision in DFC Global v. Muirfield Value Partners, the Supreme Court provided context where a deal price should represent strong evidence of fair value. More ›
ShareDelaware Supreme Court Explains When Derivative Case May Be Dismissed
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Good, No. 16, 2017 (December 15, 2017)
This decision explains again that actual or constructive knowledge of persistent corporate wrongdoing is needed before there is a substantial likelihood the directors may be liable and thus demand is excused. The Chief Justice's modest dissent points out that the facts are not fully developed at the motion to dismiss stage and he thought the complaint was good enough to warrant further discovery. This points out a potential problem in Delaware law. It will be a rare case where the board of director minutes provide clear notice of bad corporate conduct without some sort of corrective measure also promised. How sincere those promises are is hard to gauge just based on the minutes. Hence, pleading a case good enough to survive a motion to dismiss is getting harder.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Explains Caremark Claims
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Corbett, C.A. 12151-VCG (December 18, 2017)
This decision is an exhaustive review of what constitutes a Caremark claim. It makes it clear that merely because the directors were aware of red flags and the corporation later suffered harm that is not enough to support a Caremark case. Instead, the facts must show scienter deliberate violation of the law or a conscious indifference to wrongdoing. What this may mean in practice is that if the board minutes show some effort to correct corporate problems, that may negate a finding of the necessary scienter. More ›
ShareWhen a Pro Rata Dividend Triggers Entire Fairness
In IRA Trust FBO Bobbie Ahmed v. Crane, Consol. C.A. No. 12742-CB, the Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to a reclassification implemented through a pro rata dividend to all stockholders. In addressing the motion to dismiss, the Court saw three key questions: (1) does the entire fairness doctrine apply even though the reclassification involved a pro rata distribution of shares; (2) if entire fairness does apply, does the analytical framework articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, Corp. (“MFW”) apply to the reclassification; and (3) if MFW applies, have the defendants satisfied its requirements on the face of the pleadings. My colleague, Ed McNally, blogged the other day about the Court’s holding that MFW applied to the challenged reclassification. This blog post focuses on the first question in the Court’s analysis: does the entire fairness doctrine apply to a reclassification implemented by a pro rata distribution of shares. More ›
Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Ratification Defense In Stock Option Cases
There has been some uncertainly over the effect of stockholder approval of stock option plans for directors, such as does that approval constitute ratification so as to invoke the business judgment rule. This decision clarifies that law. In general, ratification will occur when the directors lack discretion on how the actual stock options are to be granted. For example, if the stock option plan permits the directors to fix the amount of stock or the price they are to pay, then the stockholder vote is not a ratification.
ShareDelaware Supreme Court Stresses Value Of Deal Price In Appraisal Case
Dell Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd., No. 565, 2016 (December 14, 2017)
In this much-anticipated decision, the Delaware Supreme Court stresses the importance of the deal price to the award in an appraisal case. The Court is very careful to note how much the deal price reflected a highly efficient market and a prolonged exposure of the company to competing buyers. It probably did not help the petitioners that their expert testified to a value that seemed much too big. The case was remanded to the Court of Chancery so the Dell saga will continue. Finally, the Supreme Court’s comments on how to allocate the expenses of an appraisal may also have a future impact on appraisals arbitrage.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Explains Basis For Inspection Of Alleged Wrongdoing
Silverberg v. ATC Healthcare Inc., C.A. 2017-0242-JRS (December 5, 2017)
While the standard to win the right to inspect corporate records to investigate alleged wrongdoing is a lenient one, it is still not enough to just allege something was done improperly. As this decision shows, you still need to prove some factual basis for the inspection. Just showing the contract with an insider was amended does not get you the right to inspect.
ShareSuperior Court Explains When Fraud Claims May be Brought
Novipax Holdings LLC v. Sealed Air Corporation, No. N17C-03-1682 (November 28, 2017)
This is an interesting decision because it explains: (1) when a fraud claim may be brought despite anti-reliance provisions in a contract and (2) when a fraud claim does not overlap and is thereby precluded by a contract claim based on similar facts. In each case, the inquiry is very fact specific.
ShareSuperior Court Rules When Fees Recoverable
Clean Harbors Inc. v. Union Pacific Corporation, No. N15C-07-081 MMJ CCLD (Nov. 15, 2017)
When an obligation to indemnify includes the fees incurred in the underlying litigation is a surprisingly frequent question. This decision works its way through a series of contractual provisions to answer that question. The lesson is that the contract needs to specifically say fees are to be included.
ShareSuperior Court Explains How To Prove Fees
The Boeing Company v. Spirit Aerosystems Inc., No. N14C-12-055 EMD CCLD (Dec. 5, 2017)
This decision explains the process and proof required to establish the amount of a fees award.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Explains Conspiracy Jurisdiction
Perry v. Neupert, C.A. 2017-0290-VCL (December 6, 2017)
The conspiracy theory of jurisdiction developed in the Istituto Bancario decision is often misunderstood, for good reasons. This decision explains the theory in a careful and detailed way that is useful for those trying to obtain jurisdiction over non-residents of Delaware.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Applies Limitations Outside Of Arbitration
HBMA Holdings LLC v. LSF9 Stardust Holdings LLC, C.A. 12806-VCMR (December 8, 2017)
This decision illustrates the dangers of not following the limited contractual time to file a dispute and instead relying on an arbitration provision to resolve that dispute. Exactly what the arbitrator is going to resolve was not clear to the plaintiff who filed a complaint to cover any claims not subject to arbitration. However, that complaint was not filed within the time permitted by the parties’ agreement. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Denies Receivership Petition For Failure To Prove Insolvency
In re: Geneius Biotechnology Inc., C.A. 2017-0297-TMR (December 8, 2017)
This decision explains what is needed to prove a corporation is insolvent so that a receiver should be appointed for it. It is not enough to just use the balance sheet, but instead additional proof of the actual values of assets needs to be provided when those assets may be worth more than their book value.
ShareCourt Of Chancery Enforces Oral Agreement To Add Directors
Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund LP v. Innoviva Inc., C.A. 2017-0309-JRS (December 8, 2017)
This is a great explanation of when a director is authorized to enter into an oral agreement that is enforceable, here to add two directors to a corporate board. To make the agreement depend on entering into a written contract, there must be a “positive agreement” that the oral agreement is not otherwise enforceable.
Share