Posts tagged Case Summaries

Court of Chancery Permits Inspection In Rights Offering

Robotti & Company LLC v. Gulfport Energy Corporation, C.A. No. 1811-VCN (July 3, 2007).

Applying standard books and records inspection law, this decision permitted inspection into the reasons why a subscription rights offering was structured so as to seemingly benefit insiders. This illustrates the reasoning process that the Court goes through to decide if there is enough basis to support a claim of possible wrongdoing that justifies granting a books and records inspection.

Share

Court of Chancery Broadens Discovery of Single Member Special Committee

Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCL (July 2, 2007).

On several occasions, the Delaware courts have questioned why only a single member is appointed to a special committee. However, the practice continues.This decision illustrates the price to be paid by such a bad practice.

Normally, Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A2d 779 (Del. 1981) limits discovery of a special committee to materials that reflect on the independence and diligence of the committee. Discovery into the merits of the committee's conclusions is limited. The theory behind this limitation is that to permit broad discovery into the allegations that lead to the committee's creation would effectively undermine the reasons the committee was appointed in the first place.

This decision permitted much broader discovery into the merits of the one person committee's conclusions because of the special circumstances involved in this battle between family members and the limited disclosures given about the reasons for selecting the single member of the committee. The rationale behind the decision still applies to increase discovery of other single member special committees.

Share

District Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Fiduciary Duty Claims, Grants Motion to Dismiss

Lemon Bay Partners LLP v. Hammonds, C.A. No. 05-327 (D.Del. June 26, 2007)

 

In this shareholder derivative action for breach of fiduciary duties against various corporate defendants, the Court held that the state law claims asserted so predominated the lone federal claim that exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was inappropriate. Plaintiffs, former shareholders of MBNA Corporation, asserted various claims against the defendants based on breach of fiduciary duties in connection with earnings reports and the merger of MBNA with Bank of America. Defendants moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiffs’ sole claim that rested on federal jurisdiction was so predominated by the state law claims as to make the exercise of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction inappropriate. The Court concurred with the defendants, concluding that Plaintiffs’ federal law claim bore only a tangential relationship to the rest of the claims. The Court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  More ›

Share

Superior Court Applies Contract Choice Of Law Rules

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.v. Federal Insurance Company, C.A. No. 030-12-232-WCC (June 25, 2007).

What law applies is often a thorny issue in complicated business cases. It is even more complicated when tort and contract claims are mixed together. Throw in a merger or two and it is a real mess. Here, the Superior Court has cut through this fog to decide that one state's law applies in the whole litigation.

First, the Court determined that the principles of the Restatement of Conflict Section 188 that governs choice of law in contract cases would apply. This was done even though tort claims were also raised by the complaint. The Court reasoned that as the tort claims were based on the existence of the contract, it met the parties' probable expectations to apply contract choice of law principles.

In doing so, the Court focused on the principle place of business of the insured in this contract dispute with its insurers. While that is one of the five factors set out in the Restatement, the Court gave it great weight under the unusual circumstances of this case.

Share

District Court Finds Claims Don't Implicate ERISA, Remands to Superior Court

Gallagher v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 07-47-JJF (D. Del. June 19, 2007).

In this suit for breach of contract, specific performance, and wages under the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act, Plaintiff filed the action in Superior Court. Defendant subsequently filed Notice of Removal to the District Court, asserting that the state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA. The Court held that Plaintiff’s claims did not implicate ERISA, and no grounds existed for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Superior Court was therefore granted. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Limits Stockholder Agreement Buy Rights

Seidensticker v. The Gasparilla Inn Inc., C.A. No. 2555-CC (June 17, 2007).

Agreements among stockholders of privately held companies usually restrict the sale of company stock and give the other stockholders a right of first refusal. As with any contract, these agreements will be enforced by Delaware courts in accordance with their terms and not as the stockholders may wish years later when a dispute arises. Here, the Court enforced the time limits set out in such an agreement for when the option to acquire a fellow stockholder's shares must be exercised.

  More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Explains Proper Merger Negotiations

In Re: Lear Corporation Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2728-VCS (June 15, 2007).

The tactics to use and the terms to seek in merger negotiations are often debated and misunderstood. In this decision, the Court sets out considerable guidance on what to do and what to avoid.  Moreover, the Court once again points out the problem created by leaving too much of the work to the CEO whose personal economic interests are also at stake. In short, that is a process to be avoided.

The Court's extended discussion of termination fees, go-shop provisions, voting agreements and matching rights are mandatory reading for anyone with a role to play in an M& A deal.

Share

Court of Chancery Overturns Standstill Agreement

In Re: The Topps Company Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2786-VCS (June 14, 2007).

The duties of directors in a sale of the company situation are often difficult to articulate except to say they should get the best price. Here, however, the Court of Chancery examines a real world problem of dealing with two competing bids and explains in detail how to do so properly. Moreover, when as here the Court concludes the directors have been unreasonably favoring one bidder over another, it will intervene to level the playing field.

The Court required that the board of Topps, the baseball card company, end a standstill agreement it had with Upper Deck, amend Topps proxy materials that had unfairly portrayed the Upper Deck offer for Topps and otherwise act to be sure that Upper Deck's proposal to acquire Topps was fairly considered. The decision also illustrates the problems management may have when they are given assurances of continued employment by one bidder who they then seem to favor in the bidding process.

Share

Court of Chancery Rejects Options Suit

Desimone v. Barrows, et. al., C.A. No. 2210-VCS (June 7, 2007).

Since the Tyson decision, some have predicted that the Court of Chancery will be hard on option granting abuses. That has proved to be so, but not always. Here the Court discussed a suit that alleged improper option granting because the plaintiff really could not plead a case that the board of directors was knowingly breaking the rules.

Many of the options involved were granted to lower level employees when the board itself was not directly involved. In that case, the plaintiff could not show that the members of the board had enough culpability to fear personal liability. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff could not meet the rules for showing a demand on the board to bring suit would be fatal.

In the case of other options, while they may have been granted at favorable times before good news caused the market to rise or after bad news caused it to fall, the options were part of a prearranged plan with set grant dates. Hence, timing of the grants was not at issue. Again, under these circumstances board liability was too remote to excuse demand under Rule 22.1.

Share

Court of Chancery Upholds Short Form Merger With Odd Vote

Matulich v. Aegis Communications Group. Inc., C.A. No. 2601-CC (May 31, 2007).

Under Section 253 of the DGCL, a parent corporation that owns 90% or more of the stock entitled to vote in a subsidiary may merge the subsidiary into itself without a stockholder vote. Here, however, some of the subsidiary's stock had the right to 'consent' to major corporate events, but not to vote on those events. Illustrating the importance of adherence to proper corporate formalities, this decision holds that the right to "'consent' is not the same thing as the right to vote". Hence, the merger was valid when the parent company had 90% of the voting stock of the subsidiary, even if the minority stockholder with the right to consent to the merger did not do so. In short, be careful how you write a corporate charter because the words used really count.

On January 15, 2008, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment.

Share

Court of Chancery Explains When Delay Is Not A Bar

Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, C.A. No. 2202-CC (May 31, 2007).

It is often thought that even a short delay in seeking injunctive relief may bar a claim. Certainly in the case of claims to rescind a corporate transaction, any delay may be fatal. However, when the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has been diligent, it is less likely to punish the delay that occurs in following the command of the Delaware Supreme Court to use the right to review corporate records before filing suit.

In this decision, the plaintiff knew he objected to the sale of securities by the PHLX and filed a demand to review its records on that sale. A year after the sale, he sued to have it rescinded. The Court denied the motion of the defendants for summary judgment on the claim for rescission because much of the delay in suing was attributed to the time the PHLX took in producing the documents the plaintiff had sought to review. In short, if you follow the rules to use the tools at hand you may get the time to do so.

Share

Court of Chancery Stays Delaware Action In Favor of Canadian Litigation

Xpress Management Inc. v. Hot Wings International Inc., C.A. No. 2856-VCL (May 30, 2007).

Under very unusual circumstances, this decision entered a stay of a Delaware proceeding to dissolve a Delaware corporation because of prior filed litigation in Canada. While the law governing stays of Delaware litigation is very well developed, it is unusual to stay a proceeding for dissolution of a Delaware corporation. That is a particularly Delaware-based remedy that its courts are reluctant to forgo when the statutory prerequisites are met.

Here, however, the facts supporting the issuance of a stay were particularly strong. These included extensive and abusive litigation between the parties in Canada, the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts over the key assets in dispute and the existence of orders by the Canadian courts that dealt with the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties that had little to do with Delaware law.

Share

Supreme Court Resolves Creditor Fiduciary Claims

North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 521, 2006 (May 18, 2007).

For many years, the rights of corporate creditors to bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against directors has been the subject of much debate. For the most part, commentators have felt there was little need to protect creditors who it was said should protect themselves through their loan agreements. Nonetheless, substantial case law existed that upheld the right of creditors to sue directors.

In this decision, the Delaware Supreme Court has effectively ended the debate. It holds that creditors may not bring a direct claim against directors for breach of their fiduciary duties. This is true whether the corporation is insolvent or is close to insolvent. Creditors may, however, bring derivative claims when the corporation is insolvent because then they are the residuary risk takers for whom the directors should act. While the opinion does not answer this question, it seems likely that creditors may not bring derivative claims when their corporation is close to but not actually insolvent. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Upholds Advance Notice Bylaw

Openwave Systems Inc. v. Harbinger Capital  Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., C.A. No. 2690-VCL (May 18, 2007).

Corporate bylaws sometimes require that the company be given advance notice of the intent to nominate anyone for election to the board. When those provisions are not clear, they will be interpreted in the way that expands stockholder rights. However, when the provisions are clear enough to give notice of their minimum requirements, then they will be enforced. That is what occurred here where the winning candidate was disqualified for his failure to comply with a reasonably clear advanced-notice bylaw.

Share

Court of Chancery Limits Inspection For Proxy Battle

Pershing Square L.P. v. Ceridian Corporation, C.A. No. 2780-CC (Del. Ch. May 11, 2007).

To obtain inspection of corporate records, a stockholder must show that her purpose is a proper one. This decision holds that determining the suitability of a candidate to serve as a director is a proper purpose. That much is no surprise.

What is potentially more significant is the Court's other holding. This decision protects confidential business information from being used in a proxy contest, at least when the relevance of the confidential materials to the election seems strained. The Court was clearly concerned about discouraging frank communication to the board. More ›

Share