About This Blog
Summaries and analysis of recent Delaware court decisions concerning business-related litigation.
Subscribe to Blog
JDSupra RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Follow us on TwitterTopics
Top Posts
Top News
- February 19, 2021
- October 30, 2020
- April 1, 2024
Archives
Morris James Blogs
Showing 16 posts by Aubrey Morin.
Court of Chancery Dismisses Aiding And Abetting Fraud Claim Against Corporate Officers And Directors On Grounds That A Corporation Cannot Conspire With Itself
Urvan v. AMMO, Inc., Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0470 PRW (Del. Ch. Feb. 27, 2024, corrected Mar. 14, 2024)
It is an axiom of Delaware law that a corporation acts through its human agents. This principle informs the causes of action available to would-be plaintiffs against a corporation and its human actors. This case follows the familiar fact pattern where, following a merger, a seller brings a variety of claims against the merged entity and its officers and directors. The plaintiff asserted an aiding and abetting fraud claim against the officers and directors of the company. The officers and directors moved to dismiss the aiding and abetting claim, arguing the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine generally bars these types of claims because a corporation cannot conspire with itself or its agents. The exception to the general rule is when an “officer steps out of her corporate role and acts pursuant to personal motives.” Reviewing the allegations in the complaint, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that the officers and directors had acted out of their own personal motivations. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s conclusory argument that they participated in making misrepresentations in the merger agreement to hide their past wrongdoing; rather, the Court reasoned that in entering the transaction and making those representations “it seems apparent they were trying to get [the corporation] a favorable deal[.]” Thus, the Court dismissed the aiding and abetting claim.
Superior Court Dismisses Aiding and Abetting Claim Against Officers
RGIS International Transition Holdco LLC v. Retail Services WIS Corp., C.A. No. N21C-12-077 (Del. Super. February 13, 2024)
Under Delaware law, a corporation generally cannot conspire with its own officers, directors, or agents, nor can those individuals aid and abet a tort committed by the corporation. There is a “personal motivation exception” to this general rule, under which an agent can be liable for conspiring with or aiding and abetting the corporation when acting outside of that agent’s corporate role or pursuant to personal motivations. More ›
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms That the Right to Sue Corporate Officers is Not a “Power” Within the Meaning of DGCL Section 242(b)(2)
In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation, C.A. 2023-1007-LWW (Del. Ch. January 17, 2024)
DGCL Section 242(b)(2) requires approval by each class of stock to amend a corporate charter, where the amendment alters or changes – adversely – the powers, preferences, or special rights of a class of stock. Here, the Delaware Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a charter amendment affecting the right to sue implicated "powers" of a certain class of stockholders, such that the amendment required approval by all classes of stock. Affirming the Court of Chancery below, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the right to sue is not a “power” within the meaning of Section 242(b)(2), and, thus, the charter amendment did not require approval by all classes of stock. More ›
Chancery Invokes the Implied Covenant to Invalidate Shareholder Rights Plan
Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership L.P. v. Pillarstone Capital REIT, C.A. No. 2022-0607-LWW (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2024)
In Delaware, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in all contracts and ensures that the “fruits of the bargain” are not frustrated by arbitrary or unreasonable action. More ›
Chancery Confirms Bad Faith Pleading Standard for Officer Caremark Claims
Segway Inc. v. Hong Cai, C.A. No. 2022-1110-LWW (Del. Ch. Ct. Dec. 14, 2023)
The Caremark doctrine recognizes the duty of oversight for directors of Delaware corporations. Under In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, 289 A.3d 343 (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 2023), corporate officers, and not just directors, owe a duty of oversight, at least within the scope of each officer’s responsibilities. This decision confirms that the same pleading standard – one requiring bad faith – applies to officer oversight claims. Here, the plaintiff brought such a claim against its former president arising out of declining sales of the company's transportation devices and an increase in accounts receivable. More ›
Chancery Dismisses Caremark Oversight Claims
In Re ProAssurance Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 2022-0034-LWW (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2023)
Claims against corporate fiduciaries for breaches of the duty of oversight are colloquially referred to as “Caremark” claims. This decision exemplifies why Caremark claims are among the most difficult to prosecute and “should be reserved for extreme events.” More ›
Chancery Decision Explains Availability of Reformation as a Targeted Remedy
AECOM, et al. v. SCCI Nat’l Hldgs., Inc., C.A. No. 2022-0727-MTZ (Del. Ch. Sept. 27, 2023)
Although the Court of Chancery frequently resolves contractual disputes, it grants contractual reformation only when “intervention [is necessary] to ensure the deal is what the parties agreed upon.” This pleadings-stage decision provides insight into the Court’s approach to reformation because the Court found that one claim supported reformation but the other did not. More ›
Chancery Refuses to Impose Additional Conditions on Voluntary Dismissal of Claims Subject to Advancement
Sal Gilbertie, et al. v. Dale Riker, et al., C.A. No. 2020-1018-LWW (Del. Ch.)
The Delaware Court of Chancery frequently hears advancement disputes, wherein officers or directors of Delaware entities seek to enforce their right to the ongoing payment of legal fees in the defense of claims brought against them. Sometimes, as in this case, a plaintiff entity moves to voluntarily dismiss its claims rather than to pay the freight for both sides. Here, the plaintiffs sought to dismiss the pending claims subject to advancement with prejudice after the Court granted the defendants advancement in a separate action. The defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ motion and sought to impose additional conditions on any dismissal under the Court of Chancery rule governing voluntary, court-approved dismissals, including conditions related to advancement and a finding that the defendants had prevailed on the merits. The Court rejected the defendants’ requests because the advancement relief could be considered under the controlling Fitracks order, and any characterization was premature given the remaining counterclaims. Thus, the Court granted the voluntary motion to dismiss without any conditions.
Chancery Refuses to Order Specific Performance Due to Inaccurate Representations and Warranties
Restanca, LLC v. House of Lithium, Ltd., C.A. No. 2022-0690-PAF (Del. Ch. Jun. 30, 2023)
The parties seeking specific performance of an agreement must establish a clear right to performance, including that all conditions to closing have been met. In this case, a buyer refused to close on the acquisition of an electric scooter company, and the seller sought specific performance in the Court of Chancery. In its post-trial decision, the Court denied that relief because the sellers inaccurately represented that the seller’s equity holders had executed a secondary sale agreement and that the seller had delivered certain financial statements to the buyer. Because neither of those things had in fact occurred, not all conditions to closing were satisfied and the buyer could walk away from the transaction. Further, because Delaware is a pro-sandbagging jurisdiction, it did not matter whether the buyer knew (as seller argued) that representations were inaccurate, and holding seller to its representations did not create an unjust result.
Chancery Provides Additional Analysis of Primedia Claims in MFW Context
City of Dearborn Police and Fire Revised Retirement System (Chapter 23) et al. v. Brookfield Asset Management Inc., C.A. No. 2022-0097-KSJM (Del. Ch. June 21, 2023)
In a short letter decision, Chancellor McCormick supplemented an earlier decision with a more fulsome analysis of plaintiffs’ Primedia claim (a direct claim challenging a merger based on a board’s failure to obtain value for material derivative claims), which the Court had earlier decided was subject to dismissal under MFW. Under Primedia’s three-part test, to bring a derivative claim post-merger, the former stockholder must plead (1) a colorable underlying derivative claim, (2) that the value of the derivative claim was material in the context of the merger, and (3) “that the acquirer would not assert the underlying derivative claim and did not provide value for it.” Here, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish Primedia’s second prong because their claims and calculations were “woefully underdeveloped[.]” Specifically, plaintiffs speculated the defendants could have been liable for the entire lost market capitalization in the years following the merger, but they could not explain how that measure of damages made sense. Other metrics, including comparing the deal price to the trading price at the time of the transaction, showed that the derivative claims were not material to the merger consideration.
Chancery Rejects “Largely Precatory” Proposed Derivative Settlement
Knight v. Miller, C.A. No. 2021-0581-LWW (Del. Ch. June 1, 2023)
Under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1(c), the Court must approve the settlement of any derivative litigation. This case provides a rare example of the Court rejecting a settlement after determining that the “give"—i.e., the substance of the settlement—did not justify the “get"— i.e., ending the litigation. More ›
Chancery Holds Unocal Claims for Injunctive Relief are not Subject to Corwin Cleansing
In re Edgio, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-0624-MTZ (Del. Ch. May 1, 2023)
Under Corwin, a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the disinterested stockholders can shift the standard of judicial review for certain transactions from heightened scrutiny to the business judgment rule. But there are some transactions that Corwin cannot cleanse. Here, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declined to apply the Corwin doctrine to a Unocal claim seeking to enjoin certain alleged defensive measures taken by the company's board. More ›
Entire Fairness Standard Applied to Transaction Benefitting Controllers of Controllers
Tueza v. Lindon, C.A. No. 2022-0130-SG (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2023)
Because controlling stockholders of Delaware corporations owe fiduciary duties to both the corporation and to its minority stockholders, the Court of Chancery will subject a transaction involving the company to entire fairness review if a controller receives a non-ratable benefit from a transaction. This case confronts a more nuanced question: Does entire fairness apply if the non-ratable benefit goes not to the controller but to a separate entity controlled by the controller's controllers? More ›
Chancery Court Again Applies Entire Fairness to Claims Challenging SPAC Transaction
Laidlaw v. GigAcquisitions2, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0821-LWW (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2023)
In the aftermath of a SPAC merger, the plaintiff (a public stockholder) brought claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the SPAC's board and sponsor, as controllers, for issuing an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement. According to the plaintiff, the proxy statement failed to disclose the net cash per share that the SPAC would contribute to the merger, which in turn misrepresented the anticipated value of post-merger shares, and that such information was material to the decisions of public stockholders whether to invest in the post-merger company or to redeem their SPAC investments. Plaintiff alleged that the sponsor and board were incentivized to minimize redemptions in order to secure returns for the sponsor, which purchased a 20% stake in the post-merger company at a nominal price. More ›
Chancery Resolves Dispute About Competing Forum Selection and Arbitration Provisions
Fairstead Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Blodgett, C.A. No. 2022-0673-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 6, 2023)
This case highlights the difficulties that can arise when relationships are governed by contracts with competing forum selection and arbitration provisions. Two LLCs brought claims against a former principal for breach of the respective LLC agreements, both of which contained Delaware forum selection clauses. In response, the principal sought an injunction barring the LLCs from proceeding outside of arbitration because the principal’s employment agreement contained a broad arbitration provision that encompassed all of the parties’ disputes. More ›