Posts in Fraud

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 ›

Share

Chancery Finds Defendants Liable for Fraud Based on the Failure to Disclose Internal Billing Practices

NetApp Inc. v. Cinelli, C.A. No. 2020-1000-LWW (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2023)
This decision arose out of the sale of the company Cloud Jumper to NetApp, Inc. The seller’s management had been recording internal software use as revenue in its unaudited financial statements but never disclosed this practice to the buyer in the sale’s process. In this post-trial opinion, in addition to breaches of contract, the Court of Chancery held that the defendants were liable for fraud because they failed to disclose internal billing practices that created the appearance of higher company revenue. The Court reasoned that this failure constituted common law fraud because the defendants had a duty to speak regarding the billing practice, there was circumstantial evidence that they had scienter to commit fraud due to their knowledge of the internal billing practice, and the plaintiffs relied on the financial data that reflected the billing practice when considering whether to pursue the deal. The decision also reflects a detailed analysis of damages and expert testimony related to the misrepresentations. 

Share

Chancery Sustains M&A Fraud Claims Based On Near-Term EBITDA Projections

In re P3 Health Grp. Hldgs., LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL (Del. Ch. Oct. 26, 2022)
This recent decision addresses three points of interest relevant to fraud claims.
First, while fraud claims generally involve statements of fact, future projections can support a fraud claim. The statement of future projection must be sufficiently specific, and the plaintiff must plead that the projection was fraudulently conceived. In this case, the Court of Chancery found plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded a fraud claim based on a specific EBITDA projection figure for the current year in which the statement was made. According to the plaintiff, the company missed the projected EBITDA number by roughly $52 million, with a projected EBITDA of $12.7 million and actual year-end results of negative $40 million. Because it was a near-term projection, and one reasonably conceivable inference from the large difference was that the defendant knowingly made a false representation, the Court found the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a fraud claim based on the EBITDA projection. More ›

Share

Superior Court Finds that Non-Recourse Provision Does Not Bar Fraud Claims Against Non-Seller Defendants

Amerimark Interactive LLC v. Amerimark Holdings, C.A. No. N21C-12-175 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Nov. 3, 2022)
This decision discusses and applies numerous rules governing fraud claims under Delaware law. For instance, an anti-reliance provision eliminates extra-contractual fraud claims while preserving intra-contractual fraud claims, and a non-recourse provision limits the entities and people against whom a claim can be brought. And, in Online HealthNow, Inv. v. CIP OCL Investments, LLC, 2021 WL 3557857 (Del. Ch. 2021), the Court of Chancery determined that a non-recourse provision did not bar claims against a non-signatory party. Here, the Superior Court applied Online HealthNow and held that fraud claims against non-seller defendants who allegedly were knowingly complicit in contractual fraud were not barred by the non-recourse and anti-reliance provisions of the agreement at issue.

Share

Equitable Fraud Claim Sufficient to Support Court of Chancery Jurisdiction

Trust Robin, Inc. v. Tissue Analytics, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0806-SG (Del. Ch. Sep. 29, 2022)
After initially questioning its own subject matter jurisdiction in a dispute involving allegations of breach of contract and tort in connection with a services agreement, the Court of Chancery concluded that the plaintiff’s equitable fraud claim was not “simply a makeweight equitable hook” attached to its legal claims. The plaintiff sufficiently alleged a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, and it was possible that the plaintiff could recover for equitable, but not legal, fraud. The Court’s reasoning cited the alignment of the parties’ interests, the defendant’s control over the parties’ joint purpose by virtue of controlling certain intellectual property and other proprietary information belonging to the plaintiff, and the defendant’s alleged use of that control to engage in self-dealing. Therefore, the Court permitted the matter to proceed.

Share

Court of Chancery Holds That Exclusive Remedy Provisions Alone Are Not Enough To Bar Fraud Claims Based On Extra-Contractual Statements

Fortis Advisors LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, C.A. No. 2020-0881-LLW(Del. Ch. Dec. 13, 2021)
Delaware public policy respects freedom of contract, but it is also intolerant of fraud. These dueling policy aims are often pitted against one another in the context of complex commercial transactions, where the contracting parties agree to allocate risk – including limitations on the information relied on in entering the transaction. Delaware courts have struck a balance: contractual disclaimers of reliance are permitted, but they must be express and limited to the other party’s extra-contractual statements. Here, the Court of Chancery considered whether an exclusive remedies provision was alone sufficient to disclaim reliance on extra-contractual statements. More ›

Share

Chancery Addresses Viability of Contractual Fraud Claims Allegedly Barred by Agreement’s Terms

Online Healthnow, Inc. v. CIP OCL Investments, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0654-JRS (Del. Ch. Aug. 12, 2021)
Online Healthnow concerns “contractual fraud claims,” meaning a statement made in the agreement itself that is known to be false by the party making the statement and on which the counterparty relies to its detriment. Under a prior Court of Chancery decision in ABRY Partners V, L.P. v. F&W Acquisition LLC, 891 A.2d 1032 (Del. Ch. 2006), a seller cannot contractually eliminate its liability for engaging in knowing contractual fraud through provisions regarding anti-reliance and knowledge, and cannot rely on contractual caps for indemnity to limit the recovery for contractual fraud. This decision addressed the sellers’ unsuccessful attempt to limit the reach of ABRY Partners based on the relevant agreement’s survival clause purporting to terminate the challenged contractual representations at closing and the combination of anti-reliance and non-recourse provisions involving certain defendants. More ›

Share

Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division Reaffirms Delaware’s Public Policy Against Intra-Contractual Fraud

Aveanna Healthcare, LLC v. Epic/Freedom LLC, N20C-08-055 AML CCLD (July 29, 2021).
Under Delaware law, parties may agree contractually to disclaim reliance – and potential liability for fraud – based on false extra-contractual statements. Delaware public policy, however, does not allow a party to disclaim liability for fraudulent statements within the parties’ contract. In addition, an owner who knowingly causes a company to make misrepresentations may be personally liable for fraud, even though an agreement provides such representations are made by “the company.” More ›

Share

Chancery Allows McDonald’s to Pursue Claims Against Ex-CEO, Finding Separation Agreement’s Integration Clause Does Not Bar Them

McDonald’s Corp. v. Easterbrook, C.A. 2020-0658-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2021)

Delaware has a strong public policy against fraud. Consequently, parties who seek to bar extra-contractual fraud claims must expressly provide in their agreement that neither is relying upon the other party’s extra-contractual representations. As this case confirms, a standard integration clause, without clear anti-reliance language, is insufficient to bar such claims. More ›

Share

Delaware Supreme Court Concludes Out-of-Pocket Damages Are the Default Remedy for Fraudulent Misrepresentation Absent an Enforceable Agreement

LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners, LLP, App. Nos. 565,2019 & 568,2019 (Del. Jan. 28, 2021)

Delaware law recognizes both benefit-of-the-bargain damages and out-of-pocket damages as remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation, but the law was unsettled whether benefit-of-the-bargain damages were available absent an enforceable agreement. Here, the Delaware Supreme Court confirms that out-of-pocket damages are the default remedy in the absence of an agreement. More ›

Share

Superior Court Applies Affiliate Privilege Doctrine To Dismiss Tortious Interference Claim Against Controller, While Sustaining Fraud Claims Against LLC Managers

Surf’s Up Legacy Partners, LLC v. Virgin Fest, LLC, C.A. No. N19C-11-092 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Jan. 13, 2021)

In adjudicating a dispute over a scuttled deal in the music festival industry, the Delaware Superior Court applied the so-called affiliate privilege doctrine, which can immunize a controller from tort liability for its affiliates’ contractual breaches, and addressed the viability of fraud claims against individual managers of certain LLCs. More ›

Share

Party Uniquely Escapes An Arbitration Provision, While The Court Reminds Us That Bootstrapped Fraud Claims Are Impermissible In Delaware

AluminumSource, LLC v. LLFlex, LLC, C.A. No: N18C-07-231-EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Jan. 21, 2021)

Delaware courts commonly enforce (and support) arbitration provisions, submitting disputes under the governing contract to a third-party neutral. Equally common is the dismissal by Delaware courts of fraud claims “bootstrapped” to a breach of contract based on allegations that a contracting party never intended to perform its obligations. This recent decision from the Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division is the unique case where, on the first issue, an arbitration provision was found unenforceable due to impossibility of performance. On the second issue, this case confirms settled law that bootstrapped fraud claims are impermissible in Delaware. More ›

Share

Chancery Applies Contractual Shortening of Limitations Period for Breaches of Representations, Finds it Inapt to Fraud Claims and Enforces Clear Anti-Reliance Clause

Pilot Air Freight, LLC v. Manna Freight Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0992-JRS (Del. Ch. Sept. 18, 2020)

In a familiar fact pattern, an acquirer of a business brought suit against sellers claiming, inter alia, that the representations and warranties in the asset purchase agreement were untrue and, indeed, fraudulent when made. The sellers moved to dismiss on the basis of a provision they claimed shortened the limitations period for breaches of representations and warranties and an anti-reliance clause they claimed eliminated any potential claims for misrepresentations or omissions outside of the written agreement. More ›

Share

Superior Court Allows Fraudulent Inducement and Breach of Contract Claims to Proceed in Parallel Based on Rescissory Damages Request

Firmenich Inc. v. Natural Flavors, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-01-320 MMJ [CCLD] (Del. Super. Apr. 7, 2020).

Fraud claims that overlap with breach of contract claims often are subject to dismissal under Delaware law. Sometimes, however, fraud and contract claims may proceed in parallel, as the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court determined in Natural Flavors. Here, the Superior Court declined to dismiss a fraudulent inducement claim seeking rescissory damages notwithstanding an alternatively-pled breach of contract claim. The litigation concerned an Asset Purchase Agreement and allegations of fraud arising from a former employee’s whistleblowing. After the plaintiff-buyer’s initial fraud claim was dismissed as impermissibly bootstrapped to its breach of contract claim, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for rescissory damages as compensation for alleged fraudulent inducement to enter into the APA, while alternatively seeking relief for alleged breach of the APA. The defendant-seller, again, sought dismissal of the fraud claim as duplicative of the breach of contract count. More ›

Share

Superior Court CCLD Addresses Pleading Standards for Trade Secret, Fraud and Implied Covenant Claims

Brightstar Corp. v. PCS Wireless, LLC, C.A. No. N18C-10-250 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2019).

Brightstar and PCS, two competitors that distribute new and pre-owned mobile devices, entered into a buy/sell agreement as part of negotiations for a proposed merger and strategic alliance.  Under the buy/sell agreement, PCS purchased mobile devices from Brightstar for re-sale to third parties and was subject to a non-circumvention provision that restricted PCS from purchasing these devices from certain other suppliers.  After their merger discussions faltered, PCS terminated the agreement, and Brightstar brought suit for unpaid amounts and alleged misappropriation of pricing information.  PCS counterclaimed for, inter alia, fraud and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. More ›

Share