Posts from 2018

Court of Chancery Enforces Section 145 Indemnification Rights of Subrogee

Meyers v. Quiz-Dia LLC, C.A. No. 9878-VCL (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2018)

This is an interesting indemnification decision for its handling of subrogation rights in the indemnification context, one involving former Quiznos officers.  First, it holds that, generally speaking, when a party who may be secondarily liable for indemnifiable litigation costs covers the indemnitee’s litigation costs, it may then recover those costs from the party who is primarily liable.  Second, it questions whether the “volunteer” exception can apply to subrogation rights in the Section 145 indemnification context.  Third, it holds that the Court will enforce fee-sharing arrangements among defendants such that the indemnitee can only recover its pro rata proportion of the fees.  Fourth, it enforces such a limitation on a subrogee, such that the subrogee cannot recover more than the indemnitee could have recovered. Fifth, it holds that a subrogee has the same right to fees-on-fees that the indemnitee would have if it had been the party seeking indemnification.

Share

Ed McNally and Albert Carroll Distinguished as Two of the Top Ten M&A Authors on JD Supra

Morris James is pleased to announce Edward M. McNally and Albert J. Carroll have been recognized in JD Supra’s annual Readers’ Choice Awards for their thought leadership and visibility in the category of Mergers and Acquisitions. 

The annual Readers’ Choice Awards reflects a deep dive into the JD Supra 2017 readership data. Emerging from a pool of over 1750 writers on M&A and related topics, Mr. McNally and Mr. Carroll have been distinguished as two of the top-ten authors in this category. More ›

Share

Delaware Public Policy Does Not Preclude D&O Insurance Coverage for Fraud

In Arch Insurance v. Murdock, (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2018), a D&O insurance coverage dispute, the state Superior Court’s complex commercial litigation division reasoned broadly to hold that, absent a contrary choice of law clause, Delaware law applies to Delaware corporations’ D&O insurance policies, and that Delaware public policy does not prohibit insuring losses from insureds’ breaching the fiduciary duty of loyalty through fraudulent conduct. More ›

Share

Delaware Superior Court Upholds Coverage For Fraud Claim

Arch Insurance Company v. Murdock, C.A. N16C-01-104 EMD CCLD (March 1, 2018)

This decision upholds coverage under a D&O policy for a claim alleging fraud by directors. This is not too surprising as the Delaware Corporation Law has long relied on insurance to cover the gap in the DGCL that denies indemnification for some claims based on disloyalty. The business judgment rule, the right to advancement, and indemnification and insurance are the triad of protections for Delaware directors.

Share

Court Of Chancery Explains Proper Evidence To Support Inspection Claim

In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Section 220 Litigation, C.A. 2017-0681-VCMR (February 28, 2018)

To obtain inspection rights from a Delaware corporation to investigate alleged wrongdoing, the petitioner needs some evidence to support his suspicions. As this decision explains, the filing of a suit by someone else is not enough. However, when that other complaint has detailed facts to support it or documents attached that show wrongdoing, that will suffice. This is also a good decision on the scope of inspection rights.

Share

Court Of Chancery Holds Demand Is Not Excused When Only Best Practices Were Not Followed

Wilkin v. Narachi, C.A. 12412-VCMR (February 28, 2018)

Demand on directors is not required when it is alleged that they have violated a statute or rule. But when the claim is only that they violated the "best practices” suggested by an agency, that is not enough to excuse demand on the board.

Share

Court of Chancery Explains DGCL Section 141

Cummings v. Eden, C.A. 13007-VCS (February 20, 2018)

This decision is particularly helpful in clarifying the effect of Section 141 of the DGCL. A transaction that is passed by the vote of even a single disinterested director is not void because of the language of Section 141. However, that does not mean that the transaction also is then subject to the business judgment standard of review. If the other directors are interested in the transaction, then the entire fairness standard will apply. More ›

Share

Supreme Court Clarifies Need To Disclose A Director’s Opinions

Appel v. Berkman, No. 316, 2017 (February 20, 2018)

When seeking stockholder votes it is not always clear when the company must disclose an opinion of an individual director on the merits of the proposed transaction. This decision reviews the Delaware law and concludes that at least when the director involved is a founder and chairman and voices an opinion that the transaction is not good for the company, that opinion must be disclosed.

Share

Court Of Chancery Discusses How To Plead A Lack Of Good Faith

Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, C.A. 11130-CB (ORDER) (February 20, 2018)

This Order is helpful in setting out how to plead that a board decision subject to a “good faith” test in an LP agreement did not meet that standard.

Share

Court Of Chancery Imposes Sanctions For Failing To Comply With A Scheduling Order

In RE Examworks Group Inc. Stockholder Appraisal Litigation, C.A. 12688-VCL (February 21, 2018)

As this decision again points out, a scheduling order is a court order that must be followed or sanctions will be imposed. Late production of documents is just such a sanctionable event.

Share

Court Of Chancery Explains Proper Purpose Analysis

KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies Inc., C.A. 2017-0177-JRS (February 22, 2018)

When a demand to inspect corporate records states a purpose other than to value the corporation’s stock, it is often difficult to determine if the basis for the demand is properly supported by the facts in the petition. The petition must state a credible basis to investigate any alleged wrongdoing. This decision is an excellent summary of what facts are sufficient to support such a demand and the analysis the Court will use to decide that issue.

Share

Court Of Chancery Interprets Dell In An Appraisal Case

In RE Appraisal Of AOL Inc., C.A. 11204-VCG (February 23, 2018)

This is an important case for its comments on the Dell decision of the Delaware Supreme Court. The Court declined to use the deal price as evidence of the fair value despite the favorable comments on the use of deal price in Dell. Hence, this may mean that some commentators are wrong in their views that deal price is conclusive in valuation cases in the Delaware courts. Note, however, that again the fair value determined by the Court is less than the deal price, a loss for petitioners.  More ›

Share

Guidance Provided to Evaluate the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The Delaware Limited Liability Company Act’s policy is to give the maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract in LLC operating agreements. While the act permits parties to eliminate fiduciary duties that members or managers would otherwise owe to one another, an operating agreement may not eliminate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that inheres in every LLC operating agreement under Delaware law. The implied covenant operates to imply terms to address developments or contractual gaps that neither party anticipated in the operating agreement, but which are necessary to fill gaps essential to meeting the reasonable expectations of the parties as reflected in the express terms of the operating agreement. More ›

Share

Court Of Chancery Adopts Market Price In Appraisal Valuation

Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. V. Aruba Networks Inc., C.A. 11448-VCL (February 15, 2018)

This appraisal case adopts the target’s market price as its fair value. This confirms that the Court of Chancery may well interpret Dell and related decisions as strongly favoring market price, at least when the market is deemed efficient and unaffected by the deal. Is this then the end of appraisal arbitrage?

Share

Court Of Chancery Provides Definitive Guidelines On Judicial Sale Process

In re: TransPerfect Global Inc., C.A. 9700-CB (February 15, 2018)

In what it is hoped is the final act in the TransPerfect case, this decision upholds the sale process used by the Custodian to sell TransPerfect. While certainly a unique case, the decision does provide guidance on the discretion of a Court-appointed custodian in selling a deadlocked corporation.

Share