Posts tagged Fiduciary Duty

Court of Chancery Defines Coercion

Gradient OC Master Ltd. v. NBC Universal Inc., C.A. No. 3021-VCP (July 12, 2007).

A line of Delaware decisions recognizes that it is improper to coerce stockholders into accepting a transaction. What exactly is coercive, however, is not well defined. After all, almost any transaction that offers a choice has incentives built into it to induce taking the deal, but that cannot be improperly coercive. Here the Court of Chancery summarizes the prior decisions and articulates helpful standards to determine when there is actionable coercion.

While the decision is complex, the bottom line appears to be whether the Court is convinced the terms offered make economic sense. Thus, in this case it made sense to ask stockholders to give up some of the restrictive covenants that went with their preferred stock to achieve a successful restructuring. In contrast, when in another case a self-tender was seen as an unjustified attempt to fight off a competing offer, the Court held the too high tender price was an unlawful attempt to coerce stockholders to take the offer or be left with an over-leveraged company in the hands of the same directors.

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

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

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 Explains Appraisal Valuation Process

Crescent/Mach I Partnership LLP v. Turner, C.A. 17455-VCN (May 2, 2007).

Predicting how the Court of Chancery will determine value in an appraisal proceeding is a difficult task. To some extent, each appraisal case will involve a battle of experts. Which side will ultimately prevail can be hard to predict, at least before cross examination. Further, the discounted cash flow approach frequently used by the Court of Chancery can be complicated. This decision offers a primer on that process and is well worth the trip for those willing to put in the time.

Share

Court of Chancery Voids Bonus Payments

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Jerney, C.A. No. 19947 (Del. Ch. March 1, 2007).

Payment of bonuses to officers and directors often seems so routine that extra care is not required to be sure they are fair. This case shows what can go wrong when fair process and fair amounts are not properly considered.

Because each member of the board was to receive a bonus under the plan in issue, the bonuses were subject to the rigorous entire fairness review by the Court. That involves testing to see if the process used to approve the bonuses was fair in the sense of using appropriate safeguards to protect the corporation's interests and fair in the sense that the amounts involved were within a range of reasonableness. These bonuses failed on both counts.

To begin with, the committee to whom the bonus plan was referred consisted of persons who would receive a bonus and a majority of the committee were closely allied with the CEO who was targeted for a $30 Million bonus under the plan. The consultant they hired came in after the plan was set up and was really only asked to justify the amounts involved.

Second, the amounts were extremely high compared to other bonuses and were for work that had not just been done already before the plan was announced but that had in a sense already been  the subject of prior bonuses. All in all, this was just too much and the Court voided the bonuses. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Blasts Backdating Options

Ryan v. Gifford C.A. No. 2213-N (Del. Ch. February 6, 2007).

Backdating of stock options has long been under fire. This decision spells out the legal theories under Delaware law that support a breach of fiduciary duty claim for backdating. In addition, the opinion also seems critical of similar practices such as "springloading" option grants. Moreover, by characterizing the backdating of options as constituting "bad faith", under the facts presented in this case,  the opinion removes the protection of the director exculpation provisions provided in many charters. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Extends Time To Sue

In Re Tyson Foods, Inc., C.A. No. 1106-N (Del. Ch. February 6, 2007).

The Court of Chancery applies a three year statute of limitations to claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty. However, there are several theories that extend that time, such as for fraudulent concealment of the facts that would provide notice of the claim. This decision explains those theories in a comprehensive way. Moreover, the decision applies this law to the detailed facts presented in this case. That is useful as it is not always easy to understand when the Court will extend the time to sue. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Finds Waste Claim Valid

Sample v. Morgan, C.A. No. 1214-N (Del. Ch. January 23, 2007).

It is a rare case where the Court of Chancery finds grounds for a claim of waste. The standard to be met is very strict. This is such a case. Here the Inside Directors caused their corporation to issue  them rights for 200,000 shares for the grand total of $200, all while knowing that the shares had a value of over $5 per share if not more. To make matters worse, the Inside Directors tried to implement this scheme by asking the stockholders to approve it through seriously misleading disclosures and then used a conflicted process to have the actual issuance of the shares approved at the board level. It is hard to see how they could have done a worse job in trying to secure their option rights.

The decision notes that even informed stockholder approval of an option plan does not give management a blank check to issue options under any circumstances. There still must be an informed process that takes due care in the decision to actually issue the options. More ›

Share

Federal Court Excludes Expert Testimony Dealing With The Law Of The Case

Cantor v. Perelman, Civil Action No. 97-586-KAJ, 2006 WL 3462596 (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2006).

Plaintiff and defendants filed motions to exclude the testimony and reports of several experts. The Court granted the motions to exclude the entire proposed testimony of one expert from both parties. The motions were denied with respect to all other experts in all other respects.

This action originates from a plan of reorganization in bankruptcy litigation involving Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. (“Marvel”) and the Trustees of the MAFCO Litigation Trust (“Trust”) created as part of the Reorganization Plan. The Trust was created to pursue breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against defendants comprising Perelman, a controlling stockholder and chairman of Marvel, and other directors of the Marvel companies. The instant opinion is connected to the issue of three tranches of notes (“Notes”) issued in 1993 and 1994 by Marvel, raising $553.5 million by using Marvel stock as collateral. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by using Marvel resources to sell the Notes and including restrictions on the issue of debt or dilution of Perelman’s shareholding in those Notes.

  More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Resolves Conflict With SEC Rule

Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf, C.A. No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. November 29, 2006).

Delaware law requires an annual stockholder meeting. The SEC rules prohibit calling a stockholder meeting when the company is delinquent in its SEC filings. In this case and in its decision in Newcastle Partners LP v. Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., 887 A.2d 975 (Del. Ch. 2005), aff'd., 906 A.2d 807 (Del. Ch. 2005) the Delaware Court of Chancery has resolved this apparent conflict. Here, the Court held that a stockholder meeting should go forward with adequate disclosures to the stockholders entitled to vote on the proposed sale of substantially all of the company's assets. The Court ordered the company to apply to the SEC for an exemption from the rules prohibiting the calling of a meeting. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Upholds Conspiracy Theory

Allied Capital Corporation v. GC-Sun Holdings, LP, C.A. No. 1954-N (Del. Ch. November 22, 2006).

This is the first decision that applies the law of civil conspiracy in the context of a parent and its subsidiaries. While there is authority that entities under common control cannot be held to have conspired together, that is not now the law of Delaware. This holding is particularly important in the way it may be applied to deal with coordinated conduct by related entities. The implications include that civil conspiracy may take the place of other legal theories, such as veil piercing, that previously were used to hold parent entities responsible for the wrongful conduct of their subsidiaries. More ›

Share

Court of Chancery Explains When Directors Are Interested In The Deal

In Re Primedia Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 1808-N (Del. Ch. November 15, 2006).

This case dealt with when directors would be considered interested in a deal so as to preclude the application of the business judgment rule and permit the suit to proceed.  Many of the directors were affiliated with the controlling stockholder who had purchased the corporation's preferred stock at a deep discount just before the board voted to redeem that stock at its face value. That decision was justified, it was argued, because the coupon rate on the stock was higher than market rate. The Court held that might well be so, but at the pleading stage it was too soon to accept that as a justification for the purchase that gave the controlling stockholder a big gain. The decision is particularly interesting for its discussion of when directors are considered sufficiently connected to a controlling stockholder so as to preclude application of the business judgment rule. More ›

Share

Federal Court Permits Motion To Transfer Using Multi-Factor Balancing Test

Weisler v. Barrows, C.A. No. 06-362 GMS, 2006 WL 3201882 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2006).

Plaintiff, a shareholder of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (“Sycamore”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, brought this derivative action against several of its directors and officers, including its chairman, CEO and CFO. The complaint alleged six counts: (1) a count against each director for section 14(a) violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”); (2) one count of disgorgement against four directors under section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Oxley Act”); (3) one count of breach of fiduciary duty against all directors; (4) one count of unjust enrichment against five directors; (5) one count of gross mismanagement against all defendants; and (6) one count of waste of corporate assets against all defendants.

The defendants moved to transfer the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the Court granted the motion because it would convenience the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had jointly and severally breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, and candor by failing to: (1) discover or prevent the intentional manipulation of stock option grants between 1999 and 2004; (2) prevent the misreporting of earnings that was caused by the manipulation of the option grants; (3) oversee the administration of Sycamore’s stock-based compensation plans; (4) ensure Sycamore operated in compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to dissemination of financial statements; (5) ensure the company did not engage in any improper or illegal practices; and (6) ensure that the company’s financial statements were compliant with GAAP. The conduct is alleged to have violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and section 304 of the Oxley Act.

The Court permitted the transfer of the matter on its individualized consideration of the motion under section 1404(a) and on whether it would convenience the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. The Court also held that it was the defendants’ burden to establish the need for transfer. The Court observed that the standard for transfer did not demand a demonstration of compelling circumstances; rather, the defendants only needed to show that the case would be better off if transferred to the other jurisdiction. That inquiry required a “multi-factor balancing test” that consisted of not only the convenience of the parties and the witnesses but also the examination of certain public and private interests. The Court listed the private interests as: (1) a plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s preference; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (5) the location of the books and records. The Court listed the public interests as: (1) the judgment’s enforceability; (2) practical trial considerations making it easy, expeditious or inexpensive; (3) the administrative difficulty presented in the two fora; (4) local interest in deciding the controversy at home; and (5) the public policies of the fora under consideration. The Court found that the private and public factors weighed in favor of transfer and therefore permitted the defendants’ motion.

Share

Supreme Court Interprets The "Duty" To Act In Good Faith

Stone v. Ritter,  C.A. No. 93, 2006 (Del. Supr. November 6, 2006).

The Supreme Court has issued the latest Delaware decision to interpret the duty to act in good faith. Indeed, it is possible to read Stone as holding there is no separate duty of directors to act in good faith. While that would be a mistake, the implications of this decision may be far reaching. At the very least, Stone upholds the conventional wisdom in Delaware that under Caremark the directors' duty to act is most easily triggered when there are red flags indicating something is wrong with the way the entity is being operated. A complaint that fails to plead those red flags has a good chance of being dismissed. More ›

Share